blandy Posted April 22, 2012 Moderator Share Posted April 22, 2012 Sounds like drivel to me, to be honest. It seems to be implying that because the ancestors of the Falkland Islanders invaded and settled there, the land "belongs" to the descendants of the invaders, and others who have subsequently settled there. These settlers were british and their descendants (shock horror!) want to be considered British, too. The people that were kicked off the islands all those years ago, and their descendants - they have no claim to the land - right? So if you invade somewhere, it's yours and that's the way it is? Previous dwellers have no right? So if Argentina invaded (unlikely) and Argies went to live there and wanted to be Argentinian, then by that logic, it'd be theirs legally and morally? There was a moment in the past decade when Britain and Argentina might have agreed to share the bonanza. But, just as the Junta blew the chance of a rational solution by an act of folly in 1982, so President Nestor Kirchner wrecked hope of a settlement in 2007 by repudiating unilaterally existing resource-sharing protocols. He thought he was commemorating the 25th anniversary of the war, distracting his electorate, striking a heroic pose, and making a calculated effort for a better deal. He was wrong on all counts. He counted Argentina out of a stake in the mounting promise of profits and made it impossible for British governments to give back what he had forfeited. His widow, who now occupies the presidency, has been left with no option but to try to justify or conceal his error retrospectively. Her bluster cannot change the situation. It can, perhaps, obscure the truth. In either event, the problem remains insoluble: Argentina cannot renounce her claims. Britain cannot accommodate them. is right IMO. If there was no oil, then it'd be a lot easier to resolve, eventually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siminjo Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 cant you guys trade the falklands for messi? just get the fifa to let him play for england. i bet messis value is not very far from the falklands =P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted April 22, 2012 Author Share Posted April 22, 2012 So if Argentina invaded (unlikely) and Argies went to live there and wanted to be Argentinian, then by that logic, it'd be theirs legally and morally? That is pretty much how everything which has happened in world history has gone so far. Of course our government will keep making sure that the residents of the Falklands will want to remain British and moving pro British citizens out there but the concerns about what Argentina will do to them are entirely valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 The people that were kicked off the islands all those years ago, and their descendants - they have no claim to the land - right? The first British settlement on the Islands dates back to 1766, long before Argentina even existed, although admittedly British and Spanish settlements co-existed for a while. They then tried to sieze the Islands for Argentina in 1832 and were kicked off by us without a fight in 1833 - although the imported Argie civvies were allowed to stay if they wished. Argentina then signed a treaty with UK in 1850 to say there were no outstanding territorial claims between the two countries. We've had a permanent presence ever since and the idea the Islanders should now come under the dominion of a country they reject flies in the face of the UN Charter. So yes, Argentina have no viable claim to the land, ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted April 22, 2012 Moderator Share Posted April 22, 2012 Discovered by the Dutch (uninhabited), first populated by the French, then along came the British and unaware the French were there, they claimed it for the King. The Spanish got it from the French, and placed the Islands under the control of Buenos Aires (part of the then Spanish Empire). Britain and Spain disputed who "owned" the Islands. After a scrap Britain agreed to leave, but maintained our claim to the Islands....Argentina came into being, inheriting the Spanish Empire's Buenos Aires claim/hold over the Islands.....Britain went back with forces and "asked" the Argies to leave, as earlier with the Brits, they did so, but under duress and without relinquishing their claim to ownership of the Islands....and on it goes. Both sides seem to have a degree of validity to their claim to "own" the Islands. To me with admittedly limited knowledge, it is far from clear Argentine has "no viable claim". Equally Britain has a claim as well. Two nation's gov'ts both have good, but not clear cut, claim to the Islands. Like the writer of the article I put up said, it doesn't matter who rules the Falklands – or whether we call them the Malvinas. I'm sure the people living there could be able to live contentedly and safely if the Gov'ts weren't so pig-headed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 Discovered by the Dutch (uninhabited), first populated by the French, then along came the British and unaware the French were there, they claimed it for the King. The Spanish got it from the French, and placed the Islands under the control of Buenos Aires (part of the then Spanish Empire). Britain and Spain disputed who "owned" the Islands. After a scrap Britain agreed to leave, but maintained our claim to the Islands....Argentina came into being, inheriting the Spanish Empire's Buenos Aires claim/hold over the Islands.....Britain went back with forces and "asked" the Argies to leave, as earlier with the Brits, they did so, but under duress and without relinquishing their claim to ownership of the Islands....and on it goes. Both sides seem to have a degree of validity to their claim to "own" the Islands. To me with admittedly limited knowledge, it is far from clear Argentine has "no viable claim". Equally Britain has a claim as well. Two nation's gov'ts both have good, but not clear cut, claim to the Islands. Like the writer of the article I put up said, it doesn't matter who rules the Falklands – or whether we call them the Malvinas. I'm sure the people living there could be able to live contentedly and safely if the Gov'ts weren't so pig-headed. Then why do the people of the Falkands want to remain British and want the Argentinians to leave them alone instead of trying to force themselves apon them, if they don't care? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted April 22, 2012 Moderator Share Posted April 22, 2012 They do care. They care because 30 years ago Argentinian forces invaded, mostly. They care because they have links back to Britain. I haven't said or implied they don't care. The point I've been trying to get across is that the two sets of Gov't have used the Falklands for their own political purposes, that neither Gov't has an indisputable and clearly "winning" claim to the Islands. If there was no oil and no fishing rights money, then the UK wouldn't have given much of a stuff about the Islands. Thatcher certainly didn't (till Argentina invaded). Our Gov't only gives a stuff now because there's oil there, maybe. It costs a fortune to keep the AIrforce and Army there - our Gov't would love not to feel they need to do that, I'm sure. The whole situation is lamentable, frankly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 Blandy, the "winning" claim surely belongs to the self governing Islanders themselves and not to the UK or Argentina? After 200 years of continuous settlement the idea that they should not be the sole determining authority on their political future is utterly perverse. The precedent set by rejecting their claim to self determination could potentially open a pandoras box of problems on a global scale. If every government deriving its historical authority from colonisation or war is to be considered illigitimate then a UN commission should be established to deal with all of the relevant cases. If they take those alphabetically then before addressing the Falklands we need to decide whether we really want America back... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted April 23, 2012 Moderator Share Posted April 23, 2012 I don't know as much about this as others posting in this thread but surely this is the most important point; Argentina then signed a treaty with UK in 1850 to say there were no outstanding territorial claims between the two countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A.J.Rimmer Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 cant you guys trade the falklands for messi? just get the fifa to let him play for england. i bet messis value is not very far from the falklands =P After last night he may not be worth so much any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Argentina will never invade the Falklands again. Their navy is basically 2 rowing boats and a dingy with an outboard. They'd get the good news from a Royal Navy destroyer before they got near a beach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b6bloke Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 well the Olympics propaganda has started! Step ups on war memorial too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avfc443 Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 well the Olympics propaganda has started! Step ups on war memorial too They really do lack class don't they. Step ups on a war memorial? What a shit country Argentina is, I'd be embarrassed if I was one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtsimonw Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 Disgrace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villadude Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 They're not bitter or owt are they.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloBarnesi Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 They really want to calm the situation... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 I bet all those tree-hugging "Let's work things out" types will turn a blind eye to this. Bomb them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 It's been a while since Argies were last seen running hell for leather out of Port Stanley, it must be quite nostalgic for the locals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 1.5 seconds of video, it's just so stupidly pointless I've burned my vhs copy of Evita welcome to Britain for the Olympics guys, you might want to prepare your own food wherever you're staying, because we've got thoughtless dullards too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted May 4, 2012 Share Posted May 4, 2012 They do care. They care because 30 years ago Argentinian forces invaded, mostly. They care because they have links back to Britain. I haven't said or implied they don't care. The point I've been trying to get across is that the two sets of Gov't have used the Falklands for their own political purposes, that neither Gov't has an indisputable and clearly "winning" claim to the Islands. If there was no oil and no fishing rights money, then the UK wouldn't have given much of a stuff about the Islands. Thatcher certainly didn't (till Argentina invaded). Our Gov't only gives a stuff now because there's oil there, maybe. It costs a fortune to keep the AIrforce and Army there - our Gov't would love not to feel they need to do that, I'm sure. The whole situation is lamentable, frankly. Are you seriously using the Falklands Islands to have a go at Thatcher :shock: I mean I know this Villatalk and all that and thus she is to be blamed for everything but even this one is stretching things a bit In 82 there was to all extents no oil , it wasnt economicaly viable to suggest that Thatcher is on parr with Bush/ Blair and their oil war is stretching things beyond any credible belief ....a task force was sent because a foreign force invaded British terrorties ... Seems a good enough reason to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts