PDA

View Full Version : 30 years anniversary of Falklands/Malvinas War and Britain-Argentina relations


Lin Lin
Mar 29th, 2012, 06:57 AM
Anyone interested in this?:confused:

Discuss please.:)

ranfurly
Mar 29th, 2012, 08:24 AM
All I have to say is,

Long Live Baroness Thatcher.

Halardfan
Mar 29th, 2012, 08:38 AM
All I have to say is,

Long Live Baroness Thatcher.

I don't wish her badly in terms of her awful illness. But I disagreed with the vast bulk of what she did when she was well.

Halardfan
Mar 29th, 2012, 08:44 AM
Anyone interested in this?:confused:

Discuss please.:)

Relations improved after the end of the dictatorship in Argentina...but have really gone bad recently.

Both sides are to blame. Both sides are engaging in provocative behaviour. The trouble is to act tough on the Falklands is popular in both countries. Argentina and Britain both have problems and to talk about the Falklands is a good distraction for them.

Hayato
Mar 29th, 2012, 08:45 AM
Don't even get me started on this :lol: The Falklands are fine how they are, and rightfully so.

ranfurly
Mar 29th, 2012, 08:50 AM
I don't wish her badly in terms of her awful illness. But I disagreed with the vast bulk of what she did when she was well.

People are planning to dance on her grave...

I won't say too much, I think it's her spirit, motivation and confidence of a leader which instilled interest in me to research her. I don't think you can take that away from her,

I wasn't born in her era (or never been to the UK for that matter) so I only go on accounts of what people have told me when they were under Thatcher "rule"...Depending on where one comes from, I find a comparative of equally polarized views, and virtually little middle ground on her.

I need a drink of Milk...brb

Londoner
Mar 29th, 2012, 09:46 AM
I don't wish her badly in terms of her awful illness. But I disagreed with the vast bulk of what she did when she was well.

You cant please everyone. But you need to be firm and have true leadership. Like a lot of people who are controversial in their time they are proven right on a lot of issues in hindsight.

At least she was a politician of conviction and you knew where you stood. Unlike the wet hapless bunch we have now - in all parties.

Londoner
Mar 29th, 2012, 09:47 AM
Don't even get me started on this :lol: The Falklands are fine how they are, and rightfully so.

This.

Londoner
Mar 29th, 2012, 09:49 AM
Relations improved after the end of the dictatorship in Argentina...but have really gone bad recently.

Both sides are to blame. Both sides are engaging in provocative behaviour. The trouble is to act tough on the Falklands is popular in both countries. Argentina and Britain both have problems and to talk about the Falklands is a good distraction for them.

Actually it was Argentina who started this again to mask their far greater problems. Britain is not afraid of discussing our other problems - we do it ad nauseum!

ranfurly
Mar 29th, 2012, 09:52 AM
You cant please everyone. But you need to be firm and have true leadership. Like a lot of people who are controversial in their time they are proven right on a lot of issues in hindsight.

At least she was a politician of conviction and you knew where you stood. Unlike the wet hapless bunch we have now - in all parties.

I think that's why alot of people are intrigued by her, as well as drawn to her because she was a woman of conviction, black was black, white was white, there was hardly grey matter because she was certain of her convictions and ideas.

They may not have been popular, or necessacary correct, but she awards herself the testament of being decisive when the time called for it, and for operating openly, not shading herself behind a coveted veil of deceit and ambiguity.

Did you live through her Londoner? or know of people who did? how did her time as Prime Minister effect you and your family?

Halardfan
Mar 29th, 2012, 10:08 AM
I did live through her and her legacy can be felt in the still broken communities surrounding the coal mines she closed.

Unions needed reform when she came to power, but she went too far...many towns and villages dominant employer was the coal mine, and it was a centre of the social community as well. At lot of places never recovered.

It was the Falklands war that saved her...she was in political trouble before that, but she was swept back to power following the Falklands victory on a tide of patriotic feeling.

Halardfan
Mar 29th, 2012, 10:09 AM
Actually it was Argentina who started this again to mask their far greater problems. Britain is not afraid of discussing our other problems - we do it ad nauseum!

But it certainly doesn't hurt Cameron to distract everyone from the public service cuts etc...

ranfurly
Mar 29th, 2012, 10:17 AM
I did live through her and her legacy can be felt in the still broken communities surrounding the coal mines she closed.

Unions needed reform when she came to power, but she went too far...many towns and villages dominant employer was the coal mine, and it was a centre of the social community as well. At lot of places never recovered.

It was the Falklands war that saved her...she was in political trouble before that, but she was swept back to power following the Falklands victory on a tide of patriotic feeling.

I read through the miners strikes and the history of industrial relations within the communities that were served, I find it quite interesting that these unions at the time were considered to be holding the pre thatcher government to ransom.

Apart from Unions whom were considered to have more power than they should of had, wasn't there an issue about the viability of alot of these mines themselves in the economical realm? These mines were theoretically costing millions to run, but production was minimal and they wern't operating on their own revenue. Basically becoming unprofitable to operate and maintain?

I mean apart from being the back bone for alot of communities, as being the major (and sometimes sole) employer, what do you think could of been done to keep the mines operating, whilst minimising union power and costs?

Was there any viable way at that time to keep these mines operating without making huge losses?

That's a serious issue when facing communities where the sole bread earner is one industry, if that goes, the whole community is effected.

Very interesting, look forward to hearing some responses. :)

AdeyC
Mar 29th, 2012, 11:17 AM
All I have to say is,

Long Live Baroness Thatcher.

Best PM we ever had by miles.

Lin Lin
Mar 29th, 2012, 11:20 AM
Why does Britain claim the islands are its territory?Do you have any historical or geographical evidence?

I simply think Britain occupied the islands and refuses to return it to Argentina,I know you will not agree with me.I have to admit that I know too little about this.


Anyone from Britain and Agrentina?I want to hear both sides.

:confused:

ranfurly
Mar 29th, 2012, 11:34 AM
Why does Britain claim the islands are its territory?Do you have any historical or geographical evidence?

I simply think Britain occupied the islands and refuses to return it to Argentina,I know you will not agree with me.I have to admit that I know too little about this.


Anyone from Britain and Agrentina?I want to hear both sides.

:confused:

Mate, it's Britain,

I'll put it in Laymans terms.

They are colonists.

(of course the Falklands and what I said is alot more complicated than that)

At several points in History, The Falklands have had ownership to Argentina, Spain and France.

Halardfan
Mar 29th, 2012, 11:51 AM
Why does Britain claim the islands are its territory?Do you have any historical or geographical evidence?

I simply think Britain occupied the islands and refuses to return it to Argentina,I know you will not agree with me.I have to admit that I know too little about this.


Anyone from Britain and Agrentina?I want to hear both sides.

:confused:

Argentina have controlled the Islands for only a tiny part of their history. For over 150 years they have been British. The Islanders who live there want to remain connected to Britain.

Some Argentines then say, oh, the Islanders are just British colonists, they came so far from Europe how can they claim that land?

But their argument is undermined by the fact that most Argentines themselves are colonists of other European nations, and in the case of this descended from the Spanish, of the dominant imperial power in the region.

People will mention British imperialism while at the same time overlooking the legacy of the Spanish Empire in central and south America.

KournikovaFan91
Mar 29th, 2012, 12:34 PM
Had a lecture today and it was about territorial claims in the South China Sea and funnily enough the Continental Shelf argument is a legitimate reason for a country to make a claim over certain islands.

Las Malvinas are on Argentina's continental shelf. So when people dismiss their claim as completely illegitimate that is just false.

Nobody is over looking Spanish imperialism, Argentina are just as opposed to that, heck at the 2007 Ibero-America summit Venezuela and Nicaragua went to town on Spain for it imperialism in the past and recent interference like the Venezuelan coup of 2002. I would say Spain nowadays only act in an imperialistic manner when a right-wing government is in charge. In the UK Labour are equally imperialistic as the Tories (Iraq anyone :shrug:).

All of the Americas from the US-Mexican border oppose imperialism and frankly I praise them for doing so its about time people took a stand to the North American and Europeans for raping the rest of the world.

Lin Lin
Mar 29th, 2012, 12:45 PM
Interesting:)

Halardfan
Mar 29th, 2012, 01:52 PM
Had a lecture today and it was about territorial claims in the South China Sea and funnily enough the Continental Shelf argument is a legitimate reason for a country to make a claim over certain islands.

Las Malvinas are on Argentina's continental shelf. So when people dismiss their claim as completely illegitimate that is just false.

Nobody is over looking Spanish imperialism, Argentina are just as opposed to that, heck at the 2007 Ibero-America summit Venezuela and Nicaragua went to town on Spain for it imperialism in the past and recent interference like the Venezuelan coup of 2002. I would say Spain nowadays only act in an imperialistic manner when a right-wing government is in charge. In the UK Labour are equally imperialistic as the Tories (Iraq anyone :shrug:).

All of the Americas from the US-Mexican border oppose imperialism and frankly I praise them for doing so its about time people took a stand to the North American and Europeans for raping the rest of the world.

Yes, but it's these very people who are often the descendants of the Imperial Spanish. Which makes them no different to what they accuse the Falkland Islanders of being...European descendants of a once brutal empire.

If you have a Falklander who family came to the Islands in the 19th century, and an Argentine who came to Argentina at the same time, to me their claims to where they live are equally valid. Indeed you could say the Falklanders claim is stronger as they did not usurp the indigenous population...there was no indigenous population.

KournikovaFan91
Mar 29th, 2012, 02:07 PM
That still doesn't change the fact the islands are on Argentina's continental shelf. That is a 100% fact. Also Spain never gave up their claim over Las Malvinas when they controlled them so under another principle uti possidetis juris which was used in Yugoslavia and the former USSR the entire territory controlled by Spain should transfer to Argentina.

The Canary Islands on the other hand have their own continental shelf so no African country could attempt to claim them as no claim would have any legitimacy. Just to show how all islands don't fall into this category.

If you really want to discuss issues regarding the indigenous population maybe your country could give the people of the Chagos Islands their home back, or is that different since a US military base is now stuck there. Seems if you are a White Falklander planted in the South Atlantic you have way more rights than a Brown Chagossian who only wanted to live your life peacefully.

Funny the Daily Mail never cover stories about the Chagos Islands :rolleyes: Only about how "brave and resilient" the Falklanders are.

*JR*
Mar 29th, 2012, 02:31 PM
Cristina I :hearts: > Elizabeth II. End of story. :rocker:

http://www.leftfootforward.org/images/2012/01/Argentina-President-Cristina-Kirchner-300x347.jpg

Halardfan
Mar 29th, 2012, 02:35 PM
That still doesn't change the fact the islands are on Argentina's continental shelf. That is a 100% fact. Also Spain never gave up their claim over Las Malvinas when they controlled them so under another principle uti possidetis juris which was used in Yugoslavia and the former USSR the entire territory controlled by Spain should transfer to Argentina.

The Canary Islands on the other hand have their own continental shelf so no African country could attempt to claim them as no claim would have any legitimacy. Just to show how all islands don't fall into this category.

If you really want to discuss issues regarding the indigenous population maybe your country could give the people of the Chagos Islands their home back, or is that different since a US military base is now stuck there. Seems if you are a White Falklander planted in the South Atlantic you have way more rights than a Brown Chagossian who only wanted to live your life peacefully.

Funny the Daily Mail never cover stories about the Chagos Islands :rolleyes: Only about how "brave and resilient" the Falklanders are.

I've never heard of the Chagos Islands. Just as most Brits hadnt heard of the Falklands until they were invaded by the Argentine regime. If its up to me, I'd give everything back, I don't care!!!

But here is the reality, the Falklands will be affiliated with Britain as long as their people want to be.

Halardfan
Mar 29th, 2012, 02:38 PM
Cristina I :hearts: > Elizabeth II. End of story. :rocker:

http://www.leftfootforward.org/images/2012/01/Argentina-President-Cristina-Kirchner-300x347.jpg

No taste.:p

KournikovaFan91
Mar 29th, 2012, 02:42 PM
Not surprising you haven't heard about it the media in the UK aren't exactly shouting it off the rooftops that they evicted people from their homes just for a US military base in the Indian Ocean.

Cristina I :hearts: > Elizabeth II. End of story. :rocker:

http://www.leftfootforward.org/images/2012/01/Argentina-President-Cristina-Kirchner-300x347.jpg

:bowdown: :bowdown:

Officialy (imo) the BEST ever female leader of ANY country.

Powerful and Glamorous, a combination few political woman possess. Clinton and Merkel should take notes, you don't HAVE to look like a power lesbian to be taken seriously as a politician.

I hope if Ireland gets a female Taoiseach she will be as tough, glamorous and leftist :oh: as Cristina.

ranfurly
Mar 29th, 2012, 08:20 PM
Not surprising you haven't heard about it the media in the UK aren't exactly shouting it off the rooftops that they evicted people from their homes just for a US military base in the Indian Ocean.



:bowdown: :bowdown:

Officialy (imo) the BEST ever female leader of ANY country.

Powerful and Glamorous, a combination few political woman possess. Clinton and Merkel should take notes, you don't HAVE to look like a power lesbian to be taken seriously as a politician.

I hope if Ireland gets a female Taoiseach she will be as tough, glamorous and leftist :oh: as Cristina.

I can name three who were greater ;-)

Helen Clarke
Angela Merkel
Ruth Dreyfuss ;-) <----The President of the CC//PP of the CH

(woops I was supposed to quite JR!)

Dave.
Mar 29th, 2012, 09:02 PM
Had a lecture today and it was about territorial claims in the South China Sea and funnily enough the Continental Shelf argument is a legitimate reason for a country to make a claim over certain islands.

Las Malvinas are on Argentina's continental shelf. So when people dismiss their claim as completely illegitimate that is just false.



Why? What makes it legitimate? The Falkland Islands have a completely different population/culture/history to Argentina and the population themselves wholly reject Argentina. It is going to take more than mere geography for Argentina's claim to be seen as credible.

And ITA re: BIOT, but I don't see what it has to do with the Falklands.

*JR*
Mar 29th, 2012, 09:32 PM
I can name three who were greater ;-)

Helen Clarke
Angela Merkel

Ruth Dreifuss ;-) <----The President of the CC//PP of the CH

(woops I was supposed to quote JR!)

http://www.icomdp.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Ohne-Titel.jpg http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2gVRW8aaBl8/TmZXh2K-gzI/AAAAAAAAEyw/Pfz-Bz4HusA/s400/Doris-Leuthard2.jpg

I far prefer ex-Prez Doris Leuthard (right). :p The hottest current SUI Nationalratin (MP) by far is Chantal Gallade:

http://www.blick.ch/img/aktuell/origs243802/5459384649-w644-h700-b2a2a2a/Chantal-Gallade.jpg

KournikovaFan91
Mar 30th, 2012, 01:25 AM
Why? What makes it legitimate? The Falkland Islands have a completely different population/culture/history to Argentina and the population themselves wholly reject Argentina. It is going to take more than mere geography for Argentina's claim to be seen as credible.

And ITA re: BIOT, but I don't see what it has to do with the Falklands.

Its been used before in accordance with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

So therefore its not like the claim just comes out of nowhere.

Keadz
Mar 30th, 2012, 02:35 AM
Why not let the people of the Falkland Islands decide? From all accounts and from my minimal previous research there doesn't seem to be much of a push for any change.

Sucks for Argentina, but hey, everybody knows the Brits aren't going to lose anymore of their remaining global influence with out some sort of fight.

Halardfan
Mar 30th, 2012, 02:55 AM
Why not let the people of the Falkland Islands decide? From all accounts and from my minimal previous research there doesn't seem to be much of a push for any change.

Sucks for Argentina, but hey, everybody knows the Brits aren't going to lose anymore of their remaining global influence with out some sort of fight.

That has to be right, that the Islanders get to choose...many of them have been there for generations. They choose to be associated with Britain. If they ask the British government to discuss sovereignty with Argentina, they would do so.

In response to that the Argentines have to peddle their view that the Islanders aren't legitimate, as the descendants of Brits. This, coming from a nation itself made up of a majority of people of European descent!

You can see the selective view of history there. The people who stole land in that part of the world overwhelmingly were the Spanish focus on them, not a few rocks off the coast.

But Britain has always been an easier target, especially for those on the far left. It fits their world view to condemn the so-called Anglo-Saxon world.

KournikovaFan91
Mar 30th, 2012, 07:41 AM
But Britain has always been an easier target, especially for those on the far left. It fits their world view to condemn the so-called Anglo-Saxon world.

Spain no longer continues its imperialism, it has accepted its current position in the world, and if you watch any youtube footage of the 2007 Ibero-America Summit you will see Spain criticized to the point where King Juan Carlos storms out.

Iraq hasn't exactly done the UK any favours, it is clearly another example of imperialism and it took place in the 21st Century. So when the Anglo-Saxon world is criticized they only have themselves to blame, if they minded their own business more then they might get more respect in the Southern Hemisphere.

KournikovaFan91
Mar 30th, 2012, 07:56 AM
I can name three who were greater ;-)

Helen Clarke
Angela Merkel
)

Clark - :bowdown:

Merkel - :help: If interfering in the democratic process in Italy and Greece makes you great then I guess this bitch is great.

Halardfan
Mar 30th, 2012, 08:29 AM
Spain no longer continues its imperialism, it has accepted its current position in the world, and if you watch any youtube footage of the 2007 Ibero-America Summit you will see Spain criticized to the point where King Juan Carlos storms out.

Iraq hasn't exactly done the UK any favours, it is clearly another example of imperialism and it took place in the 21st Century. So when the Anglo-Saxon world is criticized they only have themselves to blame, if they minded their own business more then they might get more respect in the Southern Hemisphere.

But the same people on the far-left often have a rose-tinted view of oppressive regimes like Soviet era Russia...they mention everything the (dubiously named) Anglo-Saxon world has done wrong since year zero, but fail to apply the same standard when it doesn't fit their view of the world. Or they will go back in history to a far distant point but then stop when it's suits them. They are selectively looking at history.

They are a perfect mirror of those on the right, who do the same thing in reverse, who act as though the Anglo-Saxon world has some monopoly on wisdom or virtue, that the world is always neatly divided between good and evil.
Both are equally wrong in my view.

Hayato
Mar 30th, 2012, 08:56 AM
Why does Britain claim the islands are its territory?Do you have any historical or geographical evidence?

I simply think Britain occupied the islands and refuses to return it to Argentina,I know you will not agree with me.I have to admit that I know too little about this.


Anyone from Britain and Agrentina?I want to hear both sides.

:confused:

Well, please let me inform you of the truth then. The trouble is, I bet 99% of people who don't know anything about the Falkland Islands simply look at a map and then automatically come to the assumption that Britain 'stole' the islands from Argentina :rolleyes: This is not true.

I myself knew not much about this until a few months ago, so I decided to research it deeply myself.

First of all, the Falkland Islands, prior to their settlement by Britain, never had any indigenous population. They were unoccupied. That's a fact. So therefore Argentina did not even have an ounce of influence over the islands before Britain- Argentina was not even a country at that time, nor did Spain have any stake in them. France also had a settlement there, but the islands were still lawless, and it wasn't until the British navy took control of the islands in 1833, that settlement could properly be established.

Second of all, Argentina claims that Britain expelled Argentine civilians there in 1833, but actually it was a small group of murderers who had only been there for a few months (on British territory). The actual civilians of the Falkland Islands had to seek permission from Britain to live there, so they weren't even sent there by Britain to populate. That's a fact. Therefore, that rules out any Argentine claims that the population was implanted there by Britain. For 200 years this voluntary population have called the islands home.

Argentina continues to ignore the right (self-determination, under the UN Charter) for the Falkland Islanders to live in their own home. The politicians repeatedly discriminate against the locals. There is no greater hypocrisy than when Argentina accuses Britain of being aggressive. Yes, they have a military base there and Britain spends money on the islands' defence, but doesn't that seem rather logical for any nation with an aggressive neighbour? Pretty sure that the only time Argentina has had any kind of control over the islands was when they invaded and war broke out.

I heard that Argentina is going to make a formal complaint to the United Nations about Britian 'militarising' the islands. Actually, the president went even further to say that by sending a military vessel there Britain "poses a grave danger to international security,", which...:spit: I can't. :lol: This is simply a pathetic aim at internationalising the issue and playing the victim. There would be no need for Britain to defend the islands if Argentine politicians didn't continue to act aggressively and threaten the sovereignty of the islands.

Yes, of late, Argentina has been the bully here. I used to admire Cristina but not in this situation. In her involvement in re-igniting tensions on this issue she refused British ships from Argentine ports, encouraged Argentine companies to divest from Britain, banned charter flights, threatened to cut trade barriers and made fresh calls for Latin American unity against British colonialism. Hello, how is Britain the bully here? :help: Of course Latin American countries have to side with their neighbour here, even without full knowledge of the history of the situation.

By the way, in regards to "British Colonialism", does she even know that the Falkland Islands are an "overseas territory", not a British colony? That they are economically self-sufficient, entirely self-governing, that they democratically elect their legislative assembly members? And isn't it totally ironic that their claim to the islands is entirely down to colonialism when they believe the islands were passed on from Spain to Argentina?

The Falkland Islands have tried to negotiate with Argentina in the past, but they have always torn up their side of the agreement, and now they try again to pressure Britain into talks, even though a war has already happened, and they continue to completely ignore the existence of the islanders.

You would think that the 30 year anniversary of the war should be a reminder of peace and the remembering the soldiers who died, learning from past mistakes, but all Cristina Fernandez has done is apply pressure on Britain and demand for talks, when there really is nothing to negotiate.

The thing you should understand is that Argentine leaders (like Cristina) know that bringing up the Falkland Islands dispute is good for them. Whenever they need more popularity, it's a good image for their leader to be travelling the world to encourage the support of other nations to its claim. Even many Argentine's know that it distracts attention from approaching economic problems.

The United Kingdom offered to take the dispute to mediation at the International Court of Justice in 1947, 1948 and 1955. On each occasion, Argentina declined. Funny about that. Oh, and now they kick up a fuss because Britain rightly doesn't have anything to negotiate about.

All I can say is, don't believe everything you read. Argentina will make it seem like Britain is the colonialist bully, when actually the Falkland Islands population want to remain part of Britain, and Argentina is trying to make them do something else. That sounds like colonialism to me.

I don't believe Argentina will ever have the islands, unless the islanders want to open negotiations and become Argentine (which I don't see happening somehow :lol:). The islands are rightfully British.

Keadz
Mar 30th, 2012, 10:40 AM
Thats about as much as I need to write for a uni essay by Monday, but I just can't do it haha. So much procrastination.

I envy you.

azdaja
Mar 30th, 2012, 11:21 AM
the argument that argentinians themselves are colonialists is a bit silly. south americans believe they expelled the former colonial power spain from south america and freed all lands which belonged to spain at that time. they didn't have any effective control over plenty of those lands, not just falkland islands but also patagonia. those lands were not up for grabs by other european colonial powers, though. britain didn't control most of australia yet other european colonial powers respected british sovereignity over the entire continent.

actually controlling the territories you claim for yourself became relevant much later, in the 1880's when european empires agreed to this principle as a way to avoid a war among themselves. this has lead to the infamous scramble for africa and eventually only postponed a war.

in this line of reasoning falkand islanders are intruders who settled the argentinian territory on behalf of britain. the problem is of course that they have been there for a long time. on the other hand i am not sure how much they really are attached to the islands. plenty of european settlers left former colonies when they gained independence. and i am not so sure the islands are self-sufficient. isn't the british army the biggest single employer over there? and we can talk about hypocrisy of the british here by pointing to the chagos islanders whose right to self-determination is ignored.

i am also not convinced this conflict is used only for distraction. i think plenty of people in argentina really care about it and politicians can't afford to ignore it.

this conflict is not the only legacy of british colonial treachery in latin america. there is also a dispute between guatemala and belize as well as the question of guayana esequiba.

i'm only saying that this part of the argument can't be ovelooked as easily as some people suggest.

Danči Dementia
Mar 30th, 2012, 11:26 AM
Well, please let me inform you of the truth then. The trouble is, I bet 99% of people who don't know anything about the Falkland Islands simply look at a map and then automatically come to the assumption that Britain 'stole' the islands from Argentina :rolleyes: This is not true.

I myself knew not much about this until a few months ago, so I decided to research it deeply myself.

First of all, the Falkland Islands, prior to their settlement by Britain, never had any indigenous population. They were unoccupied. That's a fact. So therefore Argentina did not even have an ounce of influence over the islands before Britain- Argentina was not even a country at that time, nor did Spain have any stake in them. France also had a settlement there, but the islands were still lawless, and it wasn't until the British navy took control of the islands in 1833, that settlement could properly be established.

Second of all, Argentina claims that Britain expelled Argentine civilians there in 1833, but actually it was a small group of murderers who had only been there for a few months (on British territory). The actual civilians of the Falkland Islands had to seek permission from Britain to live there, so they weren't even sent there by Britain to populate. That's a fact. Therefore, that rules out any Argentine claims that the population was implanted there by Britain. For 200 years this voluntary population have called the islands home.

But Argentina was already a country before the Brits invated the island in the 1830īs :confused:, going on into a discussion of who was there, if the Islands were non poblated, and bringing up "facts" is basically an endless argument, since we basically have Argentinian facts and British ones:confused:. Still that doesn change the fact that the Malvinas were under Argentinian rule by "law and right", after they became a country, even Britain recognized that with no objection. Years after they changed their mind and went there to make it a British terrotiry. Whether if the islans were uoccupied or not it does not change the fact that the islands belonged to Argentina from any point you look at it.

Argentina continues to ignore the right (self-determination, under the UN Charter) for the Falkland Islanders to live in their own home. The politicians repeatedly discriminate against the locals. There is no greater hypocrisy than when Argentina accuses Britain of being aggressive. Yes, they have a military base there and Britain spends money on the islands' defence, but doesn't that seem rather logical for any nation with an aggressive neighbour? Pretty sure that the only time Argentina has had any kind of control over the islands was when they invaded and war broke out.

The self determination right is a tricky bastard, it lacks a very important delimitation or the main words on the definition, and if we take it as it is then many many people in different regions of the world have a right to self determination, it would really be an infinite history of divitions if the self determination principle is applied as “the right of the people to decide their status” literally. In the Malvinas case, the Brit population has a right to decide their status, but so does the Argentinians and Chileans, being minorities living there :shrug: . But also we have a tirkcy definition of people…..hmmm.

The people, living in a territory, native not native, people afterall. In here we donīt have a people per se(if you know what I mean), we have Brits and Argentinians, both of whom are already stablished people, the persons living there consider themselves as either Brits or Argentines (Chileans etc) and wish to remain attached to either Britain or Argentina. The Brit population on the Malvinas donīt have differential features that can actually distinguish them as an ethniv group, own nationality, no own language, no unique comunity, no culture to set them apart from the British people.

The charter says that all people have a right to decide, with NO external influence, its political condition, to develop their economical, political and cultural condition. How can they do that if all is under British control? The way they are running it, its like a state(or whatever the divitions are in there) would be run :shrug:

Iīm NOT saying the people in there donīt have a right to decide, but you brought the self determination principle, and according to it, it canīt be applied here. Therefore for Argentina is not ignoring the self determination right under the UN charter.



I heard that Argentina is going to make a formal complaint to the United Nations about Britian 'militarising' the islands. Actually, the president went even further to say that by sending a military vessel there Britain "poses a grave danger to international security,", which...:spit: I can't. :lol: This is simply a pathetic aim at internationalising the issue and playing the victim. There would be no need for Britain to defend the islands if Argentine politicians didn't continue to act aggressively and threaten the sovereignty of the islands.

Yes, of late, Argentina has been the bully here. I used to admire Cristina but not in this situation. In her involvement in re-igniting tensions on this issue she refused British ships from Argentine ports, encouraged Argentine companies to divest from Britain, banned charter flights, threatened to cut trade barriers and made fresh calls for Latin American unity against British colonialism. Hello, how is Britain the bully here? :help: Of course Latin American countries have to side with their neighbour here, even without full knowledge of the history of the situation.

By the way, in regards to "British Colonialism", does she even know that the Falkland Islands are an "overseas territory", not a British colony? That they are economically self-sufficient, entirely self-governing, that they democratically elect their legislative assembly members? And isn't it totally ironic that their claim to the islands is entirely down to colonialism when they believe the islands were passed on from Spain to Argentina?

Also an overseas territory that by the conventions happens to belong to Argentina :p
And why is it ironic, if colonialism was not something that we chose. The least we could have was some kind of “gift leftover” afterwards :p.

And donīt assume the rest of latinamerica doesnīt have it just because they donīt agree with the other side :rolleyes: with fully knowledge of the situation and most importantly of international law and conventions etc everyone would have to be sided with Argentina.


You would think that the 30 year anniversary of the war should be a reminder of peace and the remembering the soldiers who died, learning from past mistakes, but all Cristina Fernandez has done is apply pressure on Britain and demand for talks, when there really is nothing to negotiate.

The thing you should understand is that Argentine leaders (like Cristina) know that bringing up the Falkland Islands dispute is good for them. Whenever they need more popularity, it's a good image for their leader to be travelling the world to encourage the support of other nations to its claim. Even many Argentine's know that it distracts attention from approaching economic problems.

The United Kingdom offered to take the dispute to mediation at the International Court of Justice in 1947, 1948 and 1955. On each occasion, Argentina declined. Funny about that. Oh, and now they kick up a fuss because Britain rightly doesn't have anything to negotiate about.


:facepalm: they should have agreed, there is nothing written in laws, UN whatever, that can actually justify the islands as Britainīs. anf if it were to be justified, then so sould be to many other places in the world. Not here for fucking double standars.


All I can say is, don't believe everything you read. Argentina will make it seem like Britain is the colonialist bully, when actually the Falkland Islands population want to remain part of Britain, and Argentina is trying to make them do something else. That sounds like colonialism to me.
Why would it be Colonialism if they belonged to them? :confused:

Its very easy to say let the people decide, and that would work wonderfully............. on a very idealistic world

There are also Argentines and others in there, not only the population that wants to remain part of Britain, donīt they have a right too?

According to the Brit propaganda that they worry and care :hearts: for the British population of the Malvinas, they should let Argentina care for their share of population too :shrug:. Part the islands into Brit populated and Argentine populated parts and give it to its respective soberaignity and let all be happy……………….lets just hope the oil will be on the Argentine side :oh:


I don't believe Argentina will ever have the islands, unless the islanders want to open negotiations and become Argentine (which I don't see happening somehow :lol:). The islands are rightfully British.


No they are not.
I do agree about Argentina never having the islands again though :shrug:. All odds are againts them, its a minor country vs a powerful one



and a huge "this" to Kournikova91īs posts.

Cassius
Mar 30th, 2012, 12:58 PM
But Argentina was already a country before the Brits invated the island in the 1830īs :confused:
You're wrong on the very first point you make.
Argentina didn't get independence until early 1800s.
Britain already established settlement of the Falklands in 1766, at Port Egmont.
The only ones there before that were the French (in 1764).
Spain acquired the French colony in 1767.
In 1770, Spain attacked Port Egmont and expelled the British presence. War was avoided by a peace treaty and the British returned to Port Egmont.

All this before Argentina even existed as an independent state.

Hayato
Mar 30th, 2012, 01:04 PM
the argument that argentinians themselves are colonialists is a bit silly.

I know what you mean but nobody is really saying Argentina are colonialists so to speak, it's just rather hypocritical that they claim Britain is acting all colonial (by the way, it is perfectly legal for Prince William to serve there, as it is a British territory) when Argentina is the one trying to force the closest thing to a native population the islands have to do something they don't want to. That ironically seems like colonialist ambition, is all I meant.

in this line of reasoning falkand islanders are intruders who settled the argentinian territory on behalf of britain. the problem is of course that they have been there for a long time.

Yeah but this line of reasoning is invalid, because it's a fact that the earliest settlers (yes, I mean ACTUAL settlers/civilians who lived there) were entirely voluntary, and had to seek permission to live there. So they did not do it on behalf of Britain like some desperately want to believe.


on the other hand i am not sure how much they really are attached to the islands.

:lol: Are you serious? It's their home! How can people doubt that they are not attached to the islands? They live there! And have done for 200 years. Many of them have never even seen Britain. Which is why it's so wrong that Argentines mistakenly think of it as a British colony. They disciminate the Falkland population. I also didn't say that the conflict is only used for political distraction in Argentina, just that it absolutely helps their politicans rather than hinders them, it's better for them to kick up a fuss than not at all. Plenty of people really care about it on both sides of the argument.


But Argentina was already a country before the Brits invated the island in the 1830īs :confused:, going on into a discussion of who was there, if the Islands were non poblated, and bringing up "facts" is basically an endless argument, since we basically have Argentinian facts and British ones:confused:.

Britain did not invade the islands in the 1830s. There was no "mind changing" that went on. Even after withdrawing for the American Revolutionary War, they never relinquished their sovereignity on the islands.

As Cassius has already said, I said that Argentina wasn't even a country prior to British settlement there. Which was LOOOONG before Argentina became a republic, in the 1690s. You can't seriously think that the facts are biased towards Britain. :lol: They are simply the facts. If people don't want to believe them, then that's pure denial.

Yeah it is difficult to define the self determination right as you say. The last statistic I heard was that around 90% of the islanders wanted to remain British. You have consistently mentioned the Chileans and Argenine's who live on the islands (and we are talking about a very small percentage here). If Argentina actually valued them, don't you think they would acknowledge them? They would stop grouping them together with the others, wouldn't they?! When they do things like ban flights to the Falklands from Argentine airspace, it doesn't really say much for valuing the people there.

Moreover, it's not like the population just comprises of British, Argentine's and Chileans. If you are going to be that techincal, you should include the Scandinavian population too, and the others. This comprises a form of culture. They have a right to speak out about what they want as a community. The overwhelming majority have continuously voted that they want to remain British. I think this is the most important thing, and it's precisely what Argentina CONSTANTLY refuses to acknowledge, because they know there's nothing they can do about it.

How can they do that if all is under British control? The way they are running it, its like a state(or whatever the divitions are in there) would be run :shrug:

:o Do you know about how the Falkland Islands are governed? Did you read what I wrote before? No, they are not controlled by Britain. They are a self-governing state. Self-sufficient economically. As I said before, they are an overseas territory, not a colony. Therefore, the self deteermination principle is every bit as legitimate since they are self-governing, as much as Argentina will attempt to claim otherwise. I think most people at least acknowledge that Argentina needs to open up to dialogue with the Falklands and not keep blasting Britain with intimidation and threats.

Its very easy to say let the people decide, and that would work wonderfully............. on a very idealistic world

I actually think this is a realistic solution, rather than idealistic. Pretty sure that most people would agree, actually. What the people want is what it comes down to, the fairest way possible. Of course it can't be realistic if it's against Argentina's desires though. :help:

And donīt assume the rest of latinamerica doesnīt have it just because they donīt agree with the other side :rolleyes: with fully knowledge of the situation and most importantly of international law and conventions etc everyone would have to be sided with Argentina.

I'm not assuming this, but it doesn't take a genius to know that is in the best interests of Latin Americans nations to support Argentina, not Britain, come on now.

The thing is, Argentina claims they want to negotiate, but they won't settle for anything less than complete control of the islands, under their constitution. How can a nation negotiate with that? They then kick up a huge uproar that Britain won't negotiate (I can't think why), colonialism, "danger to international security" and rubbish like this, because they know Britain can`t/doesn't need to do anything, it's all in Argentina's hands to internationalise it as much as possible in order to have any chance for negotiation.

Oil is definitely a huge incentive of Argentina, especially given the economic climate. I think that's definitely a big contributor to Argentina's renewed interest in the islands.

Oh and by the way, we are talking about Britain here. This is the same country that last month gave permission to Scotland to hold a referendum on independence.

And I haven't even mentioned that the principle of "uti possidetis juris", which is the claim that Argentina inherited the Falklands from Spain, cannot even accepted by international law. Argentina did not sign Article 7 at the Lima Congress in Peru, which said "The confederated Republics declare that they have a perfect right to the conservation of their territories as they existed at the time of independence from Spain, those of the respective Viceroyalties, captaincies-general or presidencies into which Spanish America was divided.". Since Argentina did not sign it, I don't see why they think they can claim the territories of Spain that existed at the time of independence from Spain, NOT TO MENTION that Spain's control over the Falklands was already disputed :spit: By the time of Argentina's independence, Spain had already left the Islands without any inhabitants or governments.

In diplomacy, these are the kind of things that matter.

So, the idea that "big powerful nation vs minor one", is completely irrelevant here. In more ways than one, the islands are rightfully British.

azdaja
Mar 30th, 2012, 06:39 PM
I know what you mean but nobody is really saying Argentina are colonialists so to speak, it's just rather hypocritical that they claim Britain is acting all colonial (by the way, it is perfectly legal for Prince William to serve there, as it is a British territory) when Argentina is the one trying to force the closest thing to a native population the islands have to do something they don't want to. That ironically seems like colonialist ambition, is all I meant.
argentina never had a colonial empire, britain did. arguing that a former colonial power is a victim of "colonialist" ambitions of a former colony is simply twisted and very much so.

Yeah but this line of reasoning is invalid, because it's a fact that the earliest settlers (yes, I mean ACTUAL settlers/civilians who lived there) were entirely voluntary, and had to seek permission to live there. So they did not do it on behalf of Britain like some desperately want to believe.
perhaps the problem is that they asked the wrong government for permission? and anyway, the first settlement on the islands was built by the french, not the british. france passed the claim to sovereignity to spain and spain passed it to argentina. all the early settlements were dismantled and both sides continued to make claims on the islands even when they had no control of them. there is no difference except that the british claim is actually slightly less old than the argentinian one even though argentina became independent later.

:lol: Are you serious? It's their home! How can people doubt that they are not attached to the islands? They live there! And have done for 200 years. Many of them have never even seen Britain. Which is why it's so wrong that Argentines mistakenly think of it as a British colony. They disciminate the Falkland population. I also didn't say that the conflict is only used for political distraction in Argentina, just that it absolutely helps their politicans rather than hinders them, it's better for them to kick up a fuss than not at all. Plenty of people really care about it on both sides of the argument.
yes, i am serious. we are talking about a very small population here who i am sure for the most part still have very strong ties with britain on a personal level. it's not like the islands are offering people plenty of opportunities in life. the population of the islands was on the decline before the war. plenty of people who came since are attached more to the british military mission there than to anything else. indeed, plenty of people who live in the islands are of working age, meaning they arrive there for work and leave for sunnier places when they get old. i am not saying they are not attached to the islands at all. we are all attached to places we live in. but let's put things into perspective if we are to talk about the right to self-determination and self-sufficiency.

Hayato
Mar 30th, 2012, 08:05 PM
argentina never had a colonial empire, britain did. arguing that a former colonial power is a victim of "colonialist" ambitions of a former colony is simply twisted and very much so.

I think everyone knows that. I didn't say Britain is a victim of Argentina's colonialist viewpoint. The Falkland Islands are. They are the subject. So if there has been any "twisting" there, it's that. By banning Falkland Island vessels, banning flights there, threatening sanctions, etc. Argentina is exercising patterns of behaviour that colonial empires used.

It's bullying, really. It's pretty simple, the fact that they ignore the rights of the islanders and continuously discriminate against them, constantly reiterating they will settle for nothing less than supposedly "reclaiming" the islands of which they've never owned themselves- it should not be a surprise that some interpret this as a colonialist stance. I definitely agree with David Cameron on this one.

perhaps the problem is that they asked the wrong government for permission?

So, which government should they have asked permission to live there? The Argentine? Who have never actually controlled the islands at all? Why didn't Argentine's flock there when they had their possible chance? There is nothing more to say about that. We could go on all day about "why's and if's", but the fact that they had to seek permission is evidence enough.

and anyway, the first settlement on the islands was built by the french, not the british. france passed the claim to sovereignity to spain and spain passed it to argentina.

:lol: It's a perfectly good theory that France passed it on to Spain, who passed it on to Argentina, but that is all irrelevant if you read about the principle of "uti possidetis juris" and it's irrelevance in international law.

Even if uti possidetis juris WAS universally accepted as a principle of international law, it would not apply because when Argentina declared independence from Spain, Spain did not have de facto control of the islands.

Perhaps this is one of the reasons why Argentina refused to take their claim to the International Court of Justice which Britain had offered to on three separate occasions. Anyway, France has been particularly supportive of the British position.

yes, i am serious. we are talking about a very small population here who i am sure for the most part still have very strong ties with britain on a personal level. it's not like the islands are offering people plenty of opportunities in life. the population of the islands was on the decline before the war. plenty of people who came since are attached more to the british military mission there than to anything else. indeed, plenty of people who live in the islands are of working age, meaning they arrive there for work and leave for sunnier places when they get old. i am not saying they are not attached to the islands at all. we are all attached to places we live in. but let's put things into perspective if we are to talk about the right to self-determination and self-sufficiency.

Sorry, but it's too easy a way out to completely overlook the rights and wishes of an entire population of a territory, whether 3,000, 30,000 or 300,000. They are still a self-governing community. Whether one argues that they are natives or not, they are still the only inhabitants.

Given the fact the population size is small, people automatically come to the assumption that they simply cannot be attached to the land at all! The Falkland Islanders have to be accounted for, their voice is more important than both Argentina and Britain's.

For me, the bottom line is that the United Nations has asked both Argentina and Britain to take the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands into account and come to a peaceful solution. As we all know, Argentina refuses to take these interests into account, and still have the nerve to act like the victim and try to accuse Britain of disobeying the UN.

In my honest opinion (and we're all entitled to our own, of course), the fact that Argentina already invaded and struck up an actual war (and the place is still riddled with mines) really should have ruled out any possibility of future negotiations at all!

And why should Britain open negotiations about the sovereignty of the Islands, when, ultimately, Argentina refuses to acknowledge and discriminates against its inhabitants. This must be done if they ever expect to deserve any kind of negotiation process.

azdaja
Mar 30th, 2012, 09:16 PM
I think everyone knows that. I didn't say Britain is a victim of Argentina's colonialist viewpoint. The Falkland Islands are. They are the subject. So if there has been any "twisting" there, it's that. By banning Falkland Island vessels, banning flights there, threatening sanctions, etc. Argentina is exercising patterns of behaviour that colonial empires used.

It's bullying, really. It's pretty simple, the fact that they ignore the rights of the islanders and continuously discriminate against them, constantly reiterating they will settle for nothing less than supposedly "reclaiming" the islands of which they've never owned themselves- it should not be a surprise that some interpret this as a colonialist stance. I definitely agree with David Cameron on this one.
nonsense. this is between argentina and britain. claiming control over islands half a world away (and that is what the british do) is colonialist behaviour.

:lol: It's a perfectly good theory that France passed it on to Spain, who passed it on to Argentina, but that is all irrelevant if you read about the principle of "uti possidetis juris" and it's irrelevance in international law.

Even if uti possidetis juris WAS universally accepted as a principle of international law, it would not apply because when Argentina declared independence from Spain, Spain did not have de facto control of the islands.

Perhaps this is one of the reasons why Argentina refused to take their claim to the International Court of Justice which Britain had offered to on three separate occasions. Anyway, France has been particularly supportive of the British position.
of course france is supportive of the british stance. both colonial powers lost their empires and now have to work together rather than against each other :hug:

Sorry, but it's too easy a way out to completely overlook the rights and wishes of an entire population of a territory, whether 3,000, 30,000 or 300,000. They are still a self-governing community. Whether one argues that they are natives or not, they are still the only inhabitants.
how many falkland islanders can claim that they have lived in the islands for several generations? the population of the islands when the war broke out was something like 1,800 and declining. it seems their wishes to stay there were not very strong at that point in time. sínce then it has turned into a populist issue and putting some troops in a region where otherwise few people would want to go helps prosperity of the place.

Given the fact the population size is small, people automatically come to the assumption that they simply cannot be attached to the land at all! The Falkland Islanders have to be accounted for, their voice is more important than both Argentina and Britain's.
i said clearly that i do not think they are not attached to the land at all. i just question how much they really are attached to the land which ultimately does not offer them much opportunities especially because they clearly have strong ties to a place which does.

For me, the bottom line is that the United Nations has asked both Argentina and Britain to take the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands into account and come to a peaceful solution. As we all know, Argentina refuses to take these interests into account, and still have the nerve to act like the victim and try to accuse Britain of disobeying the UN.

In my honest opinion (and we're all entitled to our own, of course), the fact that Argentina already invaded and struck up an actual war (and the place is still riddled with mines) really should have ruled out any possibility of future negotiations at all!

And why should Britain open negotiations about the sovereignty of the Islands, when, ultimately, Argentina refuses to acknowledge and discriminates against its inhabitants. This must be done if they ever expect to deserve any kind of negotiation process.
you can take the interest of the population of the islands into account and still give them to argentina. the uk doesn't care about the interest of the islanders (having close links with south america is in their interest) but about the issue of sovereignity as much as argentina does. just because they can hide behind the falkand islanders backs doesn't mean they are rightful about this.

Halardfan
Mar 30th, 2012, 11:07 PM
nonsense. this is between argentina and britain. claiming control over islands half a world away (and that is what the british do) is colonialist behaviour.


of course france is supportive of the british stance. both colonial powers lost their empires and now have to work together rather than against each other :hug:


how many falkland islanders can claim that they have lived in the islands for several generations? the population of the islands when the war broke out was something like 1,800 and declining. it seems their wishes to stay there were not very strong at that point in time. sínce then it has turned into a populist issue and putting some troops in a region where otherwise few people would want to go helps prosperity of the place.


i said clearly that i do not think they are not attached to the land at all. i just question how much they really are attached to the land which ultimately does not offer them much opportunities especially because they clearly have strong ties to a place which does.


you can take the interest of the population of the islands into account and still give them to argentina. the uk doesn't care about the interest of the islanders (having close links with south america is in their interest) but about the issue of sovereignity as much as argentina does. just because they can hide behind the falkand islanders backs doesn't mean they are rightful about this.

There are some valid points, but the part about the Islanders not feeling attached to their Island home is strange...many of them have been there as long as many "Argentines" have been in Argentina.

If I said of those Argentines, oh your family has only been here 150 years you can't be attached to Argentina, maybe you should go 'home' to Spain, Germany (President Fernandez-Kirchner for example!) that would be ridiculous. But people are trying to pull the same trick with the Islanders.

The very reason the military prescence was increased in recent decades, was that when we reduced our prescence, the Argentines, led by a brutal dictator, decided to invade.

Who is to blame for that? Laughably some Argentines still blame the British, they say we drew them into the invasion by reducing some of our presence, that it was an elaborate trap.

Chris 84
Mar 30th, 2012, 11:30 PM
Anyone interested in this?:confused:

Discuss please.:)

not really. the falklands as an issue is only really brought up for political point scoring. the nauseating thing about the war was that thatcher manipulated it in order to get the press behind her struggling regime and used the lowest form of jingoism in order to remain in power. without the falklands, she'd have been booted out.

I don't wish her badly in terms of her awful illness. But I disagreed with the vast bulk of what she did when she was well.

that's very charitable of you. but for what she did to communities across the uk, for discriminating against scotland who hadn't wanted her in the first place, for her shameful treatment of the hunger strikers and of ireland in general, for cosying up to pinochet, for selling arms to iraq, for being an ally of apartheid south africa and being opposed to the anc, there are a lot of people who DO wish her badly. sure, she's a helpless old woman now, but so are plenty of war criminals when they are broguht to justice, and i don't have any sympathy for them....

People are planning to dance on her grave...

I won't say too much, I think it's her spirit, motivation and confidence of a leader which instilled interest in me to research her. I don't think you can take that away from her,

I wasn't born in her era (or never been to the UK for that matter) so I only go on accounts of what people have told me when they were under Thatcher "rule"...Depending on where one comes from, I find a comparative of equally polarized views, and virtually little middle ground on her.

I need a drink of Milk...brb

You cant please everyone. But you need to be firm and have true leadership. Like a lot of people who are controversial in their time they are proven right on a lot of issues in hindsight.

At least she was a politician of conviction and you knew where you stood. Unlike the wet hapless bunch we have now - in all parties.

what i agree with here is that you did know where you stood with her. she had her warped policies, and as disgusting as i find her, at least she was what she was, unlike the vast majority of politicians who have come after her who are utterly devoid of ideology and would sell their granny for votes.

Best PM we ever had by miles.

No.
Worst.

Halardfan
Mar 30th, 2012, 11:54 PM
not really. the falklands as an issue is only really brought up for political point scoring. the nauseating thing about the war was that thatcher manipulated it in order to get the press behind her struggling regime and used the lowest form of jingoism in order to remain in power. without the falklands, she'd have been booted out.



that's very charitable of you. but for what she did to communities across the uk, for discriminating against scotland who hadn't wanted her in the first place, for her shameful treatment of the hunger strikers and of ireland in general, for cosying up to pinochet, for selling arms to iraq, for being an ally of apartheid south africa and being opposed to the anc, there are a lot of people who DO wish her badly. sure, she's a helpless old woman now, but so are plenty of war criminals when they are broguht to justice, and i don't have any sympathy for them....





what i agree with here is that you did know where you stood with her. she had her warped policies, and as disgusting as i find her, at least she was what she was, unlike the vast majority of politicians who have come after her who are utterly devoid of ideology and would sell their granny for votes.



No.
Worst.

I think she is guilty of some of the things you accused her of, and not guilty of some of them. Certainly when she was well I hated her, hated what her policies did to places like my home town. Now she is trapped in a terrible living death, and I can't summon up that hate for her now.

But what of Argentina's part? Thatcher would have no Falklandd war to exploit had their dictatorial regime not invaded. Blame them first and foremost. You rightly mentioned the Falklands were used and still are used by some in Britain as distracting propaganda. But it's important to recognize it's perhaps even more true of Argentina.

Chris 84
Mar 31st, 2012, 12:08 AM
I think she is guilty of some of the things you accused her of, and not guilty of some of them. Certainly when she was well I hated her, hated what her policies did to places like my home town. Now she is trapped in a terrible living death, and I can't summon up that hate for her now.

But what of Argentina's part? Thatcher would have no Falklandd war to exploit had their dictatorial regime not invaded. Blame them first and foremost. You rightly mentioned the Falklands were used and still are used by some in Britain as distracting propaganda. But it's important to recognize it's perhaps even more true of Argentina.

which ones is she not guilty of, exactly?

yes, i didnt specify actually. is aid it is used to score political points and that is true equally of argentina.

Halardfan
Mar 31st, 2012, 12:17 AM
which ones is she not guilty of, exactly?

yes, i didnt specify actually. is aid it is used to score political points and that is true equally of argentina.

I think it's questionable that she discriminated against Scotland in particular, you saw what she did to Northern England too?

The Ireland point is questionable, but that's because we have a different view of people like Bobby Sands.

Chris 84
Mar 31st, 2012, 12:33 AM
I think it's questionable that she discriminated against Scotland in particular, you saw what she did to Northern England too?

The Ireland point is questionable, but that's because we have a different view of people like Bobby Sands.

oh, in general her enemy was the working class, regardless of nationality and that manifested itself in several ways. however, the poll tax was introduced in scotland a full year before anywhere else in the uk for no reason other than vindictiveness (or at least that was the perception)

and sure, it may be questionable, but my opinion is/was shared by the vast majority of people across the world including the european commission on human rights and even idiotic right wing institutions like freedom house. the number of streets and memorials all over the world to bobby sands and the hunger strikers is incredible. sure, they don't have to be right and it doesn't mean that you are wrong, but it is a widely held view, nonetheless.

Halardfan
Mar 31st, 2012, 12:49 AM
oh, in general her enemy was the working class, regardless of nationality and that manifested itself in several ways. however, the poll tax was introduced in scotland a full year before anywhere else in the uk for no reason other than vindictiveness (or at least that was the perception)

and sure, it may be questionable, but my opinion is/was shared by the vast majority of people across the world including the european commission on human rights and even idiotic right wing institutions like freedom house. the number of streets and memorials all over the world to bobby sands and the hunger strikers is incredible. sure, they don't have to be right and it doesn't mean that you are wrong, but it is a widely held view, nonetheless.

But in regards to Ireland it's the same Thatcher who later signed the Anglo-Irish agreement, a document then loathed by Northern Irish Protestants...this despite the IRA trying to wipeout the British government in the Brighton bomb just a year earlier.

Paisley called Thatcher a Jezebel after she signed the Anglo-Irish agreement, and said...

"Having failed to defeat the IRA you now have capitulated and are prepared to set in motion machinery which will achieve the IRA goal...a united Ireland. We now know that you have prepared Ulster Unionists for sacrifice on the altar of political expediency. They are to be the sacrificial lambs to appease the Dublin wolves"

As you know, I'm very much anti-Thatcher, and she is guilty of a lot, just some things maybe not.

Chris 84
Mar 31st, 2012, 01:07 AM
But in regards to Ireland it's the same Thatcher who later signed the Anglo-Irish agreement, a document then loathed by Northern Irish Protestants...this despite the IRA trying to wipeout the British government in the Brighton bomb just a year earlier.

Paisley called Thatcher a Jezebel after she signed the Anglo-Irish agreement, and said...

"Having failed to defeat the IRA you now have capitulated and are prepared to set in motion machinery which will achieve the IRA goal...a united Ireland. We now know that you have prepared Ulster Unionists for sacrifice on the altar of political expediency. They are to be the sacrificial lambs to appease the Dublin wolves"

As you know, I'm very much anti-Thatcher, and she is guilty of a lot, just some things maybe not.

yes, but the agreement was also hardly one that was loved by nationalists in general either, and the whole point of it was tactical and an effort to try and draw support away from the IRA, etc. as it was, whatever paisley thought about it, the agreement didn't actually do anything much....but yes, it is an example of something which was more liked by catholics and disliked by protestants.
i'm not saying that everything she did in ireland was pro-unionist and anti-republican, but the majority was. and with particular reference to the hunger strikers, whatever you think of the IRA, and other organisations involved, those on the hunger strikes were merely attempting to regain their SCS, not attempting something revolutionary or unreasonable. thatcher prefered to see them die than to budge and it ended up boosting IRA and pro-nationalist feeling not only in ireland, but all over the world. it is simplistic to say that the hunger strikers brought about power-sharing and ceasefire, etc, but they certainly played a key role.
as you know, i despise pretty much everything new labour stand for and cannot abide tony blair, but the one thing he did which will be (almost) universally applauded is to broker the power-sharing deal in ireland. thatcher had the opportunity, but her whole policy of not negotiating with "terrorists" (hypocritical considering the amount of arms we sent to questionable groups, her love of pinochet and the many attrocities of the british army) ensured that there was never a chance of her negotiating a lasting peace.

Halardfan
Mar 31st, 2012, 01:19 AM
yes, but the agreement was also hardly one that was loved by nationalists in general either, and the whole point of it was tactical and an effort to try and draw support away from the IRA, etc. as it was, whatever paisley thought about it, the agreement didn't actually do anything much....but yes, it is an example of something which was more liked by catholics and disliked by protestants.
i'm not saying that everything she did in ireland was pro-unionist and anti-republican, but the majority was. and with particular reference to the hunger strikers, whatever you think of the IRA, and other organisations involved, those on the hunger strikes were merely attempting to regain their SCS, not attempting something revolutionary or unreasonable. thatcher prefered to see them die than to budge and it ended up boosting IRA and pro-nationalist feeling not only in ireland, but all over the world. it is simplistic to say that the hunger strikers brought about power-sharing and ceasefire, etc, but they certainly played a key role.
as you know, i despise pretty much everything new labour stand for and cannot abide tony blair, but the one thing he did which will be (almost) universally applauded is to broker the power-sharing deal in ireland. thatcher had the opportunity, but her whole policy of not negotiating with "terrorists" (hypocritical considering the amount of arms we sent to questionable groups, her love of pinochet and the many attrocities of the british army) ensured that there was never a chance of her negotiating a lasting peace.

But it's fairly remarkable that she would still sign the Anglo-Irish agreement, so soon after the IRA trying to blow the British government to bits in Brighton.

I think the hunger strikers played no role in the eventual peace. The IRA campaign, from beginning to end, was in my view unneccesary. People like John Hume deserve credit for the peace...Paisley deserves none, Sinn Fein/IRA deserves none. Remember I am sympathetic to a United Ireland and would have voted SDLP had I lived in Northern Ireland. I'm not a Unionist and I loathed Paisley and his crazed cried of "NEVER NEVER NEVER!"

Chris 84
Mar 31st, 2012, 01:31 AM
But it's fairly remarkable that she would still sign the Anglo-Irish agreement, so soon after the IRA trying to blow the British government to bits in Brighton.

I think the hunger strikers played no role in the eventual peace. The IRA campaign, from beginning to end, was in my view unneccesary. People like John Hume deserve credit for the peace...Paisley deserves none, Sinn Fein/IRA deserves none. Remember I am sympathetic to a United Ireland and would have voted SDLP had I lived in Northern Ireland. I'm not a Unionist and I loathed Paisley and his crazed cried of "NEVER NEVER NEVER!"

possibly the value of armed struggle?

oh, and we shall have to completely disagree with each other on the second point.to me, its like saying that the anc/mk/mandela played no role in ending apartheid. without some kind of violent uprising of an oppressed people, it is pretty rare for changes to be made. at the very least the ira kept ireland in the news and ensured that the people of blair's generation knew exactly what was going on in northern ireland. people can disagree with the ira's actions all they want, but they at least pose the question "why?". why are these people fighting? why are these people prepared to die for whatever cause they believe in? without people like that, the rest of the uk, the rest of ireland, the rest of the world wouldn't give a toss about what was going on in northern ireland. imo hume and trimble deserve credit, but the sdlp would have been impotent without sinn fein and the ira.

Halardfan
Mar 31st, 2012, 01:54 AM
possibly the value of armed struggle?

oh, and we shall have to completely disagree with each other on the second point.to me, its like saying that the anc/mk/mandela played no role in ending apartheid. without some kind of violent uprising of an oppressed people, it is pretty rare for changes to be made. at the very least the ira kept ireland in the news and ensured that the people of blair's generation knew exactly what was going on in northern ireland. people can disagree with the ira's actions all they want, but they at least pose the question "why?". why are these people fighting? why are these people prepared to die for whatever cause they believe in? without people like that, the rest of the uk, the rest of ireland, the rest of the world wouldn't give a toss about what was going on in northern ireland. imo hume and trimble deserve credit, but the sdlp would have been impotent without sinn fein and the ira.

But you Scots won your own parliament and perhaps soon your independence without violent struggle.

It's entirely likely that the same would have happened in Northern Ireland. without the IRA.

What Paisley's views betray is that it was not mainland Britain that was the problem in Northern Ireland, but the Protestant communities and Catholic communities themselves. They want someone to blame, they should look at their own bigotry and division.

Scotland was never the target of IRA attacks, so perhaps that contributes to a different view of the IRA (though not in the Protestant areas of Glasgow I bet)

In England the IRA put bombs in English shopping centres, pubs, public parks, hotel, and the streets of towns and City's. They would have happily killed people like me in their cause. It's natural I dont have any time for them.

Lin Lin
Mar 31st, 2012, 05:14 AM
Interesting to read:)

If we have more posters from Argentina,it would be too good:yeah:so we can get more comprehensive understandings:)

Danči Dementia
Mar 31st, 2012, 06:36 AM
Britain did not invade the islands in the 1830s. There was no "mind changing" that went on. Even after withdrawing for the American Revolutionary War, they never relinquished their sovereignity on the islands.

As Cassius has already said, I said that Argentina wasn't even a country prior to British settlement there. Which was LOOOONG before Argentina became a republic, in the 1690s. You can't seriously think that the facts are biased towards Britain. :lol: They are simply the facts. If people don't want to believe them, then that's pure denial.

My bad, I got all together in one the 2 first paragraphs of your post.:o

Argentina failed to populate them around the 20īs as they were planning to do so, but continued there, The Brits relinquished their "sovereignity" when signing a treaty with recognizing independence and territory and making no complain whatsoever about the Falkands. Them arriving in 1830 and kicking the argie little population out (doesnīt matter if 1 or 2 or a bunch of murdeders as you say) how come that is not an invation? Why not? If weīre not going to count it as invation neiter should we count the Argentinian one in the 80īs then :shrug:


Yeah it is difficult to define the self determination right as you say. The last statistic I heard was that around 90% of the islanders wanted to remain British. You have consistently mentioned the Chileans and Argenine's who live on the islands (and we are talking about a very small percentage here). If Argentina actually valued them, don't you think they would acknowledge them? They would stop grouping them together with the others, wouldn't they?! When they do things like ban flights to the Falklands from Argentine airspace, it doesn't really say much for valuing the people there.


It does not matter if they are a small percentage, if the Brits in there have a right then so should them. We are not talking about a functioning country, we are talking about a disputed territory. But yes, I donpt agree with Argentinaīs doings :/

Moreover, it's not like the population just comprises of British, Argentine's and Chileans. If you are going to be that techincal, you should include the Scandinavian population too, and the others. This comprises a form of culture. They have a right to speak out about what they want as a community. The overwhelming majority have continuously voted that they want to remain British. I think this is the most important thing, and it's precisely what Argentina CONSTANTLY refuses to acknowledge, because they know there's nothing they can do about it.

I didnīt left them out, I wrote etc :p
and what form of culture? an extention of its own home culture?:confused:



:o Do you know about how the Falkland Islands are governed? Did you read what I wrote before? No, they are not controlled by Britain. They are a self-governing state. Self-sufficient economically. As I said before, they are an overseas territory, not a colony. Therefore, the self deteermination principle is every bit as legitimate since they are self-governing, as much as Argentina will attempt to claim otherwise. I think most people at least acknowledge that Argentina needs to open up to dialogue with the Falklands and not keep blasting Britain with intimidation and threats.


Yes,I know!
"Self-governing" with a tiny governing body (not rellevant though), state unable to defend its ineterested without the intervention of the UK, self governing body that needs autorizathion of the Queen.
Self-sufficient economy, with big level of dependence to the monay sent by the UK. How much money do they get each year?

But you cannot have a right to self determination solely on the fact of being supossedly self governed. What would happen to them if they stop receiving the money from the motherland? And you said it there yourself, overseas territory.
You canīt make a right legitimate by kinda fulfilling one of the criterias :lol: Imagine if it would be possible!


I'm not assuming this, but it doesn't take a genius to know that is in the best interests of Latin Americans nations to support Argentina, not Britain, come on now.

well yeah, but you said even without the full knowledge of the situation as it if were an absolute truth, which is not, how can you be sure we donīt?

The thing is, Argentina claims they want to negotiate, but they won't settle for anything less than complete control of the islands, under their constitution. How can a nation negotiate with that? They then kick up a huge uproar that Britain won't negotiate (I can't think why), colonialism, "danger to international security" and rubbish like this, because they know Britain can`t/doesn't need to do anything, it's all in Argentina's hands to internationalise it as much as possible in order to have any chance for negotiation.

Oil is definitely a huge incentive of Argentina, especially given the economic climate. I think that's definitely a big contributor to Argentina's renewed interest in the islands.

Oh and by the way, we are talking about Britain here. This is the same country that last month gave permission to Scotland to hold a referendum on independence.

And I haven't even mentioned that the principle of "uti possidetis juris", which is the claim that Argentina inherited the Falklands from Spain, cannot even accepted by international law. Argentina did not sign Article 7 at the Lima Congress in Peru, which said "The confederated Republics declare that they have a perfect right to the conservation of their territories as they existed at the time of independence from Spain, those of the respective Viceroyalties, captaincies-general or presidencies into which Spanish America was divided.". Since Argentina did not sign it, I don't see why they think they can claim the territories of Spain that existed at the time of independence from Spain, NOT TO MENTION that Spain's control over the Falklands was already disputed :spit: By the time of Argentina's independence, Spain had already left the Islands without any inhabitants or governments.

In diplomacy, these are the kind of things that matter.

That utis possidetis whatever principle :yawn:, gave me nightmares, but thatīs another history.

Argentina was not even a part of the Lima congress, why on earth would they have had to sign it?? :confused: on the other hand they did sign the utis possidetis of 1810 or 1811.

Having the control of the islands being disputed doesnīt mean they didnīt have it, a territory being on dispute doesnīt means anyone can come and settle there. Spain did try to get them back, but the Argentines didnīt like it and got there. Spain obeyed :oh: :p

The facts of what happened after 1810 and before the Brits invated are highly disputed, I think thereīs a substancial lack of true information there, one parts says Argentina agreed to the claim of (Jellet??) and that they originally went with Utis possidetis, but others says its not. Kind of bits of history which can be used to each others convenience.

Utis P....It has helped to have territories formed after dissolutions (whether for good or for bad) Internationa Law is not my thing but last time I checked it was accepted and not irrelevant. why do you say its not relevant and that it canīt be accepted?




So, the idea that "big powerful nation vs minor one", is completely irrelevant here. In more ways than one, the islands are rightfully British.


No its is not irrelevant, mostly because we wouldnīt even be having this discussion if the Argentinians had been able to prevent the Brits invation in 1830 on the first place.:p

You can keep saying the islands are rightfully British with the assurance you do as much as you want, that doesnīt makes it a definitive truth, if it were so rightfully theirs, with no contest, we are talking about a highly important country in the world, besties of the worldīs most powerful and influential country, rules are meant to be followed by everyone, but we very well know rules can be easily broken when they donīt suit the interests of mommy and daddy. Come on now, , the British would have found a way to have the status of the Islands officially changed a long time ago. They havenīt been able to do it :shrug:

The UN keeps ignoring referendums, the self determination right it cannot be applied to the Island, and it compromises Argentinaīs territorial integrity. It hasbpt been possible to solve it and so instead they urge both sides to get to an agreement, that is how tricky the situation is.

They are not stupid either,(UN the worldīs powers) they know very well what kind of precedent this will set if the Brits get away with what they want, how many regions in the world would start to have strong problems for things like this. Its a delicate thing.

Its most likely Argentina will continue to take the kind of measures they have been takeing lately, which seem quite desperate if you ask me. And that the Malvinas will remain as they are for a long time. :shrug:

I actually think this is a realistic solution, rather than idealistic. Pretty sure that most people would agree, actually. What the people want is what it comes down to, the fairest way possible. Of course it can't be realistic if it's against Argentina's desires though.

I think its not because it compromises too many things in order fot it to be realistic. At least in my books.

Now Argentina :facepalm:, I sympathize with their cause and understand the simbolism of it, however I think theyīre trying with a wrong approach, like I said, a desperate one, not a good one, and its not like I can see a good approach either. I donīt think they will ever have complete sobereignty over the islands, for me this battle is a lost battle for them. They will never be able to administrate a territory on which the population wants nothing to do with them, and hipotetically speaking if they could, how much money theyīre going to have to spend on it, basically would have to be the same as Briatin does, to keep it as a self sufficient territory and keep the people in there content, which I donīt see it happening.

Danči Dementia
Mar 31st, 2012, 06:38 AM
You're wrong on the very first point you make.
Argentina didn't get independence until early 1800s.
Britain already established settlement of the Falklands in 1766, at Port Egmont.
The only ones there before that were the French (in 1764).
Spain acquired the French colony in 1767.
In 1770, Spain attacked Port Egmont and expelled the British presence. War was avoided by a peace treaty and the British returned to Port Egmont.

All this before Argentina even existed as an independent state.

why I am wrong if I wrote that Argentina was already a country by the time Brits invated the Islands in 1830īs.:p

Halardfan
Mar 31st, 2012, 07:07 AM
People can't have it both ways, they say oh, Britain just wants the Falklands because of rich fishing grounds or oil, like a goldmine they exploit but then in the sane breath claim the Islands are dependent financially on Britain and couldn't be sustained without them. Both things cant be true at the same time.

Who is to blame for the large amount of British military in the Falklands? Argentina, they attacked the Islands! You think after that a British Prime minister is going to withdraw forces again?

I await the return of South America to all it's native people! ;)

Hayato
Mar 31st, 2012, 09:10 AM
My bad, I got all together in one the 2 first paragraphs of your post.:o

They were about two different things.

Argentina failed to populate them around the 20īs as they were planning to do so, but continued there, The Brits relinquished their "sovereignity" when signing a treaty with recognizing independence and territory and making no complain whatsoever about the Falkands. Them arriving in 1830 and kicking the argie little population out (doesnīt matter if 1 or 2 or a bunch of murdeders as you say) how come that is not an invation? Why not? If weīre not going to count it as invation neiter should we count the Argentinian one in the 80īs then :shrug:

What treaty was that, may I ask? Where did Britain say that they relinquished their sovereignty? That's quite a statement. If you're going to say this kind of thing, please provide some proof.

You keep referring to the British "invasion" of 1832, so let me explain the situation. First of all, the land was still British, and they were asserting their rights by the claim of sovereignty of January 1765 when Captain John Byron claimed the Falklands for Britain. Second of all, there was certainly no war, barely a verbal dispute. When Argentina actually tried to settle there, they failed twice, and it was only the third time when Luis Vernet took some BRITISH settlers and sought permission for a license from the BRITISH Consulate in Buenos Aires to settle there, that it actually worked.

So, please tell me how Argentina can claim Britain had no claim on the islands before they arrived, if the guy that settled there for Argentina had to seek Britain's permission to go and settle there WITH British settlers.

The next thing that happened was the United Provinces suddenly gave Vernet full authority on the islands, despite American and British protests which were ignored. Anyway, the SETTLEMENT was ABANDONDED when Vernet left to trial 3 American vessels for fishing in the area, he himself stated that the settlement was destroyed and the Falklands were declared free from all government!

When Britain re-arrived, the overwhelming majority of the "Argentine's" there were British, who refused to fight their own countrymen! :tape:

Moreover, the British commander may have expelled some but he actually asked some of them (the settlers, non murderers) to stay, and most of them did. He even paid them in silver. Not so much an invasion to me. So Argentina CLAIMS that they were expelled, but it's there in writing, plain and clear, you can see from diary entries at that time.

It does not matter if they are a small percentage, if the Brits in there have a right then so should them.

Of course they have a right. They can speak their mind just like all of the islanders, no matter where their heritage might be.

But you can't have it both ways. You can't keep saying the voice of the Argentines/Chileans or whichever Latin Americans who live on the islands should be heard, and next say that the right to self-determination of the islanders is irrelevant. ;)

Self-sufficient economy, with big level of dependence to the monay sent by the UK. How much money do they get each year?

You really should read about this before assuming things. As I said before, the only financial aid the Falklands receive from the UK is on it's defense (and it's less than 1% of it's defence budget), which they would not need if it weren't for such an aggressive neighbour. They do not receive financial payments from the UK for anything else, so there you go.

Having the control of the islands being disputed doesnīt mean they didnīt have it, a territory being on dispute doesnīt means anyone can come and settle there. Spain did try to get them back, but the Argentines didnīt like it and got there. Spain obeyed :oh: :p

When Britain withdrew from the islands in the 1700s, they never relinquished their claim of sovereignty. They left a plaque behind asserting it, which Argentina believes invalid. All of a sudden in 1811 when Spain abandoned the islands, and Argentina became independent in 1816, they say the islands still belonged to Spain! Talk about twisting the truth. They can't have it both ways.

You can even read documents written by the British Prime Minister from 1829, 3 years before Argentina would venture to the islands, that assert the British territorial claims of the Islands. So it's not like they "suddenly changed their minds" as you might believe.

I ask this to you- how can Spain cede territories that it did not possess at the time? Spain showed absolutely no interest in these islands after 1811, even after Argentina became independent later.

The facts of what happened after 1810 and before the Brits invated are highly disputed, I think thereīs a substancial lack of true information there, one parts says Argentina agreed to the claim of (Jellet??) and that they originally went with Utis possidetis, but others says its not. Kind of bits of history which can be used to each others convenience.

I haven't seen a single fact from you yet though. The only disputing that's done is by Argentina, who ignore crucial historical details and allow Foreign Ministers to speak lies to the United Nations. Also, I don't really understand what you're trying to say here.

Utis P....It has helped to have territories formed after dissolutions (whether for good or for bad) Internationa Law is not my thing but last time I checked it was accepted and not irrelevant. why do you say its not relevant and that it canīt be accepted?

Uti Possidetis Juris is irrelevant because the Islands were still disputed by the time Argentina became independent. They were not Spain's to give, unfortunately for Argentina. Spain acknowledged the British claim in 1771.

Moreover, before this, France could not have legally sold the islands to Spain, since they were still disputed then too. Under international law, disputed land cannot be sold, nor inherited.

Come on now, , the British would have found a way to have the status of the Islands officially changed a long time ago. They havenīt been able to do it :shrug:

:lol: What are you trying to say here? What more exactly does Britain want to have with the Falklands? They do not want nor need the status of the Islands changed, they respect the rights and self-determination of the Islanders. Britain is not the one with the problem, I think we all know that.

The UN keeps ignoring referendums, the self determination right it cannot be applied to the Island, and it compromises Argentinaīs territorial integrity. It could have been resolved, but no instead they urge both sides to get to an agreement, that is how tricky the situation is.

The Falkland Islands do not compromise Argentina's territorial integrity. Even they know they can't use the 'geography' argument as legitimacy for sovereignty, due to the Island of Palmas Case of 1928, which stated that title based on contiguity has no standing in international law!

Interesting to read:)

If we have more posters from Argentina,it would be too good:yeah: so we can get more comprehensive understandings:)

All you need to do is read the news to hear the Argentinian perspective. Since the British need to do NOR say anything, they are the one's kicking up all the fuss again. But if you read the good majority of this thread, you might understand the truth, and not just the political point scoring that goes on.

Just Do It
Mar 31st, 2012, 09:13 AM
I find it crazy that 2 big countries could get in a war over such a silly place.

ElusiveChanteuse
Mar 31st, 2012, 09:18 AM
I find it crazy that 2 big countries could get in a war over such a silly place.

We found war in a silly place.:oh:

Lin Lin
Mar 31st, 2012, 09:40 AM
I find it crazy that 2 big countries could get in a war over such a silly place.

Why it is silly?:confused::p

Hayato
Mar 31st, 2012, 09:53 AM
I find it crazy that 2 big countries could get in a war over such a silly place.

Close to 1,000 people died fighting over it. It has big oil reserves. But it's Argentina that still causes all the trouble.

If they so desperately want it, i'd love to see them try to make a case to take to the International Court of Justice. But I guess they are smart enough to know that not only the historical details are against them, but the right for self-determination is too important and nothing will change that. I guess that is why they have refused Britain's offer on 3 occasions, but they will continually complain to the United Nations knowing it won't hurt them since it's only an influential body.

Anyway, in my opinion, if anything will ever be solved, it will be sharing the oil with Argentina. I don't believe the Islands should at all belong to Argentina, they will always be rightfully British, but giving Argentina a share in the resources is perhaps the only peaceful solution. Or, alternatively, the birth of an independent nation, but the people don't want this as far as I know.

Just Do It
Mar 31st, 2012, 09:58 AM
Why it is silly?:confused::p

Because it has 2000 residents, climate sucks, no one wants to live there, it's in the middle of nowhere. Both countries have big territory and it is crazy they started a war over that piece of land.

Hayato
Mar 31st, 2012, 10:04 AM
Because it has 2000 residents, climate sucks, no one wants to live there, it's in the middle of nowhere. Both countries have big territory and it is crazy they started a war over that piece of land.

Argentina started the war. It was not a mutual feeling of resentment, until after Argentina invaded. I think that's quite important to understand. Even now, there is nothing Britain needs to do or say, they don't owe it to anyone.

Lin Lin
Mar 31st, 2012, 10:05 AM
Because it has 2000 residents, climate sucks, no one wants to live there, it's in the middle of nowhere. Both countries have big territory and it is crazy they started a war over that piece of land.

Are you trying to be funny,right?:help:

Just Do It
Mar 31st, 2012, 11:14 AM
Are you trying to be funny,right?:help:

Lin Lin, no, I am not trying to be funny, I am just sharing my opinion on this case. Instead of spamming and asking retarded questions all the time maybe we could get your opinion on some matter for once.

azdaja
Mar 31st, 2012, 11:47 AM
There are some valid points, but the part about the Islanders not feeling attached to their Island home is strange...many of them have been there as long as many "Argentines" have been in Argentina.

If I said of those Argentines, oh your family has only been here 150 years you can't be attached to Argentina, maybe you should go 'home' to Spain, Germany (President Fernandez-Kirchner for example!) that would be ridiculous. But people are trying to pull the same trick with the Islanders.
i'm not pulling that trick with anyone. i simply see the falkands as a small and barely viable settlement populated by people who have strong ties with the place most of them came from and talk about it in the context of the right to self-determination.

The very reason the military prescence was increased in recent decades, was that when we reduced our prescence, the Argentines, led by a brutal dictator, decided to invade.

Who is to blame for that? Laughably some Argentines still blame the British, they say we drew them into the invasion by reducing some of our presence, that it was an elaborate trap.
argentinian generals are definitely to blame for creating the current situation even though the british are using the conflict for scoring cheap jingoist points with their own population as well. there is some irony in this because the generals who wanted to go in history as the ones who brought the islands "back" under argentinian control may have made the falkand islands a viable colony (at least for the time being) by virtually inviting the british military there.

Chris 84
Mar 31st, 2012, 03:59 PM
But you Scots won your own parliament and perhaps soon your independence without violent struggle.

It's entirely likely that the same would have happened in Northern Ireland. without the IRA.

What Paisley's views betray is that it was not mainland Britain that was the problem in Northern Ireland, but the Protestant communities and Catholic communities themselves. They want someone to blame, they should look at their own bigotry and division.

Scotland was never the target of IRA attacks, so perhaps that contributes to a different view of the IRA (though not in the Protestant areas of Glasgow I bet)

In England the IRA put bombs in English shopping centres, pubs, public parks, hotel, and the streets of towns and City's. They would have happily killed people like me in their cause. It's natural I dont have any time for them.

i can argue that scotland has been discriminated against in some ways by some uk leaders, but the people (like thatcher) who have generally damaged scotland don't care if it is scotland, england, wales or wherever. all they cared about was helping themselves at the cost of working class communities wherever they were in the uk. generally speaking, scotland is no different to any northern, labour-voting english region, other than the fact that scotland has a history as a state in its own right, and is recognised as a country for certain purposes.

however, in northern ireland catholics were barred from professions, discriminated against in the worst ways and the policy of internment was one of the biggest evils that the uk perpetrated in the latter half of the 20th century at least. it was no different to how the nazis acted. people were lifted from their homes, workplaces, or from the streets PURELY because they were catholic. whilst it was meant to be something applicable to all citizens, 99% of those affected were catholics, despite the unionist paramilitaries being equally visible. and bloody sunday was an example of the british soldiers massacring innocent civilians in a peaceful protest.
we scots can complain about this and that, but we never underwent the hardships of catholics in northern ireland or anything like it. our relationship with england is one of semi-cordial rivalry which at times can boil over. the relationship between the uk and irish catholics was one of warfare.

i'm not saying that you have to have time for terrorist organisations. you won't find many people who approve of attacks on civilian targets. however, bringing the war to england was in my opinion a successful tactic. im not syaing that the end justifies the means, i'm just saying it worked. the anc's paramilitary wing attacked civilian targets too, but mandela is held up as a hero, etc, but the situation wasn't so very different. and let's not forget that there were plenty of incidents where the british army murdered irish civilians, as well as ira/uvf/whatever else murdering irish and british civilians themselves.

dsanders06
Mar 31st, 2012, 04:08 PM
They're ours, hands off.

Halardfan
Mar 31st, 2012, 05:12 PM
i can argue that scotland has been discriminated against in some ways by some uk leaders, but the people (like thatcher) who have generally damaged scotland don't care if it is scotland, england, wales or wherever. all they cared about was helping themselves at the cost of working class communities wherever they were in the uk. generally speaking, scotland is no different to any northern, labour-voting english region, other than the fact that scotland has a history as a state in its own right, and is recognised as a country for certain purposes.

however, in northern ireland catholics were barred from professions, discriminated against in the worst ways and the policy of internment was one of the biggest evils that the uk perpetrated in the latter half of the 20th century at least. it was no different to how the nazis acted. people were lifted from their homes, workplaces, or from the streets PURELY because they were catholic. whilst it was meant to be something applicable to all citizens, 99% of those affected were catholics, despite the unionist paramilitaries being equally visible. and bloody sunday was an example of the british soldiers massacring innocent civilians in a peaceful protest.
we scots can complain about this and that, but we never underwent the hardships of catholics in northern ireland or anything like it. our relationship with england is one of semi-cordial rivalry which at times can boil over. the relationship between the uk and irish catholics was one of warfare.

i'm not saying that you have to have time for terrorist organisations. you won't find many people who approve of attacks on civilian targets. however, bringing the war to england was in my opinion a successful tactic. im not syaing that the end justifies the means, i'm just saying it worked. the anc's paramilitary wing attacked civilian targets too, but mandela is held up as a hero, etc, but the situation wasn't so very different. and let's not forget that there were plenty of incidents where the british army murdered irish civilians, as well as ira/uvf/whatever else murdering irish and british civilians themselves.

I don't think it was a successful tactic there is no united Ireland or any prospect of one. Much as I too would wish there to be be. If only to be rid of the place.

I think your portrayal of the situation in Northern Ireland is one-sided.

I hate the Protestsnt terror groups. I hate the IRA. The only difference between the two is that some view the IRA with a grotesque sentimentality and romance. Bloody Sunday was grotesque but to isolated from the sea of atrocities on all sides, is wrong. It's an insult to the countless victims in other events in the conflict.

Chris 84
Mar 31st, 2012, 09:45 PM
I don't think it was a successful tactic there is no united Ireland or any prospect of one. Much as I too would wish there to be be. If only to be rid of the place.

I think your portrayal of the situation in Northern Ireland is one-sided.

I hate the Protestsnt terror groups. I hate the IRA. The only difference between the two is that some view the IRA with a grotesque sentimentality and romance. Bloody Sunday was grotesque but to isolated from the sea of atrocities on all sides, is wrong. It's an insult to the countless victims in other events in the conflict.

my point in it being a successful tactic was that there is a degree of equality between the groups that was never there in the 1970s and before, and there is power sharing where catholics actually have a say in what happens. their ultimate goal hasn't been achieved, but the progress in the 25 years from 1970 has been incredible.

my portrayal of civil liberties being infringed is not one-sided, merely factual. protestants held the positions and could (and did) hold catholics down, and internment was, as i said, much akin to rounding up the jews by the nazis. if you want to give examples of civil liberty crimes that were perpetrated in the other direction, then go ahead, but catholics in northern ireland were second class citizens, and i don't think any real argument can be made against that.

Halardfan
Apr 1st, 2012, 12:09 AM
my point in it being a successful tactic was that there is a degree of equality between the groups that was never there in the 1970s and before, and there is power sharing where catholics actually have a say in what happens. their ultimate goal hasn't been achieved, but the progress in the 25 years from 1970 has been incredible.

my portrayal of civil liberties being infringed is not one-sided, merely factual. protestants held the positions and could (and did) hold catholics down, and internment was, as i said, much akin to rounding up the jews by the nazis. if you want to give examples of civil liberty crimes that were perpetrated in the other direction, then go ahead, but catholics in northern ireland were second class citizens, and i don't think any real argument can be made against that.

Are not the punishment beatings visited on their own community by the IRA civil liberties crimes? Is not blowing the kneecaps of relatively minor criminals civil liberty crime? The IRA acted more like the Mafia than anything else at times.

Putting bombs packed with nails in public parks, is a lot more than a civil liberty crime.

My view is simply in the awful spiralling conflict everyone has guilt to go around. Ultimately, hopefully we are both glad things are much better than they were, even though we disagree on how or why progress was made.

Sammo
Apr 1st, 2012, 12:12 AM
I've just checked google maps, I've been hearing of the Falklands since I was little and never bothered to look for them in a map :lol: They're enormous!! I thought they were some crappy little islands :haha:

Chris 84
Apr 1st, 2012, 04:15 PM
Are not the punishment beatings visited on their own community by the IRA civil liberties crimes? Is not blowing the kneecaps of relatively minor criminals civil liberty crime? The IRA acted more like the Mafia than anything else at times.

Putting bombs packed with nails in public parks, is a lot more than a civil liberty crime.

My view is simply in the awful spiralling conflict everyone has guilt to go around. Ultimately, hopefully we are both glad things are much better than they were, even though we disagree on how or why progress was made.

i don't disagree with that, my only point is that where a state oppresses members of that state on the grounds of religion or whatever else, it is natural for those people to react, and generally speaking, violence is the most effective way to bring about change.

we will agree to disagree, and indeed, things are far better now than they were even 15 years ago, never mind 30, 40 years ago.

Halardfan
Mar 12th, 2013, 09:44 AM
The Falkland Islanders held a referendum on the future of the Islands and the result was overwhelming with 99.8% voting for the status quo.

Only 3 people voted against...curious to know who they were!

Argentina has decried it as a result from an implanted population.

By such a definition, how many Argentines would be classed as implanted?

Lin Lin
Mar 12th, 2013, 12:18 PM
I started this:eek:

PhilePhile
Mar 12th, 2013, 04:17 PM
As expected, it's not just some islands they were/are fighting over.

The 'Falkland Islands economic zone' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Falkland_Islands):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a8/FalklandEconomicZone.png/799px-FalklandEconomicZone.png



:devil:

A dispute over fishing and hunting rights resulted in a raid by the US warship USS Lexington in 1831.[27][28] The log of the Lexington reports only the destruction of arms and a powder store, but Vernet made a claim for compensation from the US Government stating that the settlement was destroyed.[27] (Compensation was rejected by the US Government of President Cleveland in 1885.) Lexington's Captain declared the islands "free from all government", the seven senior members of the settlement were arrested for piracy[29] and taken to Montevideo,[28] where they were released without charge on the orders of Commodore Rogers.[30]

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands#Economy