Falkland islands - British or Argentine?

RobitTV

The Falkland Islands (pronounced Spanish: Islas Malvinas) are an archipelago in the South Atlantic Ocean, located about 250 nautical miles - 460 km from the coast of mainland South America. The archipelago consists of East Falkland, West Falkland and 776 lesser islands. The capital, Stanley, is on East Falkland. It is an internally self-governing British Overseas Territory.

On 2 April 1982, Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands and other British territories in the South Atlantic. The military junta which had ruled Argentina since 1976 sought to maintain power by diverting public attention from the nation's poor economic performance and exploiting the long-standing feelings of the Argentines towards the islands. The war ended in British victory!

Read about the ongoing dispute - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute

So in your opinion - British or argentine islands?

Superbus

Falkish.

Full.Duck

My opinion doesnt matter. They are british.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Give the Falklands back to the Falklandish.

Biggins

Neither. Gia.

Bloody Nipples

Bring back Thatcher.

Chuck Stone

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCbfMkh940Q

Killer Pigeon

Firstly, the majority of the population on the islands has some sort of ancestral connection to Britain and are predominantly English speaking.

Secondly, there was a war back in the 80's that decided this.

So, I honestly can't see them being Argentine. They will either remain British or form an independent state.

ItsAWindUp

In before KeithAFC!

stovelid

I couldn't give a falk.

Killer Pigeon

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Falklandish.

Falklander/ Falklanders.

LondonIrish90

It is not a matter of opinion, they are a British Overseas Territory.

If the question had been "Should the Falklands be British or Argentine" then the answer would remain as British for me. They had been British for centuries before the state of Argentina was even established!

Why should Argentina have them? Because they are close? Maybe OP you would be of a different opinion if I suggested that the Island of Ireland should be British simply due to it being within close proximity to the larger island with a bigger population?

No to Argentine Imperialism!!! :pac:

RobitTV

LondonIrish90 wrote: »

It is not a matter of opinion, they are a British Overseas Territory.

If the question had been "Should the Falklands be British or Argentine" then the answer would remain as British for me. They had been British for centuries before the state of Argentina was even established!

Why should Argentina have them? Because they are close? Maybe OP you would be of a different opinion if I suggested that the Island of Ireland should be British simply due to it being within close proximity to the larger island with a bigger population?

No to Argentine Imperialism!!! :pac:

I Have supported the british claim ever since i heard of the islands, the uk has the legal claim to them.

Argentine has no legal claim, instead they resort to shouting.

snubbleste

Islas Malvinas

dlofnep

I was looking at the wiki page. First paragraph says "Chilenos Hijos de mil putas!!". I know puta means bitch/whore, but any translations?

Killer Pigeon

LondonIrish90 wrote: »

It is not a matter of opinion, they are a British Overseas Territory.

If the question had been "Should the Falklands be British or Argentine" then the answer would remain as British for me. They had been British for centuries before the state of Argentina was even established!

Why should Argentina have them? Because they are close? Maybe OP you would be of a different opinion if I suggested that the Island of Ireland should be British simply due to it being within close proximity to the larger island with a bigger population?

No to Argentine Imperialism!!! :pac:

No to British Imperialism also!

Free the Falklands! Grant them complete independence!

LondonIrish90

dlofnep wrote: »

I was looking at the wiki page. First paragraph says "Chilenos Hijos de mil putas!!". I know puta means bitch/whore, but any translations?

Chileans are the sons of a thousand whores.

Biggins

We are just tenants of this Earth.
Just wait till Lord Xenu re-invades from his celestial temple on planet Zanussi, then he'll kick us in the backside with his forty legs and show us who owns what!
Tom Cruise will be laughing all the way to the bank!

O' crap.. he already is! The wacko!

DEFTLEFTHAND

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Falklander/ Falklanders.

I know, I was doing a little play on Paul McCartney's protest song 'Give Ireland back to the Irish'.

Eve_Dublin

I call them the Malvinas but yeah, they're part of Britain. Whatever. All I know is they've the stupidest name for a capital city on the planet...if the Argentinians reclaimed them, it'd be called something a bit sexier and that's enough reason to hand them back.

The English are crap at naming towns and cities (Grimsby anyone?).

Chuck Stone

ItsAWindUp wrote: »

In before KeithAFC!

http://1-2knockout.typepad.com/.a/6a00e5505fc4968834010536e09336970b-800wi

charlemont

British, as the people who live there consider themselves British and as far as I know there was no native population, Argentina was founded through colonisation too so they have no right to claim the islands.

dlofnep

LondonIrish90 wrote: »

Chileans are the sons of a thousand whores.

Seems a bit random for a wiki page for the Falklands.

mike65

The funny thing about the Falklands/ Malvinas is that they were never really under Argentinian rule (bar that period of occupation in 1982) The closest they got was when an American privateer David Jewett made a claim on behalf of United Provinces of South America (which was a proto Argentina) in 1820 and that lasted a very short time. Jewett was not a reliable character.

I am pie

Pinochet alleged to have provided support to the British in return for cut price military planes. Think they let them use chilean airspace or runways...something like that. Argies hate them for it...not good neighbourly relations going on there at all !

Sunnyisland

Give them to france they were there first :-)

ejmaztec

dlofnep wrote: »

Seems a bit random for a wiki page for the Falklands.

Wasn't it because the late arsehole, Pinochet, allowed the other arsehole Thatcher to use Chile as a base during the war?

Killer Pigeon

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

I call them the Malvinas but yeah, they're part of Britain. Whatever. All I know is they've the stupidest name for a capital city on the planet...if the Argentinians reclaimed them, it'd be called something a bit sexier and that's enough reason to hand them back.

"Ohhhh Stanley!"

*Spank* *Spank*

ejmaztec

realies wrote: »

Give them to france they were there first :-)

They couldn't find any cheese so they took off.

cml387

ejmaztec wrote: »

Wasn't it because the late arsehole, Pinochet, allowed the other arsehole Thatcher to use Chile as a base during the war?

No.

But Chile did supply Britain with any intelligence it had on Argentine military
forces.

Sunnyisland

You have to laugh at the poll, most people see them as argentinian lol,Is there an undercurrent of anti english in all of you ?

LondonIrish90

cml387 wrote: »

No.

But Chile did supply Britain with any intelligence it had on Argentine military
forces.

Were special forces not allowed to operate from Chile? I'm not sure but it rings a bell from the (few) documentaries I have seen on the Falklands war.

mikemac

The British Navy has retired their Harrier planes

And they are so short of aircraft carriers they use the French Charles de Gaulle for NATO exercises. It'll be another decade before they have new resources

They've never been so weak, could be a good time for another invasion

LondonIrish90 wrote: »

Were special forces not allowed to operate from Chile? I'm not sure but it rings a bell from the (few) documentaries I have seen on the Falklands war.

Yes, just as observers.

Hazys

LondonIrish90 wrote: »

It is not a matter of opinion, they are a British Overseas Territory.

If the question had been "Should the Falklands be British or Argentine" then the answer would remain as British for me. They had been British for centuries before the state of Argentina was even established!

Why should Argentina have them? Because they are close? Maybe OP you would be of a different opinion if I suggested that the Island of Ireland should be British simply due to it being within close proximity to the larger island with a bigger population?

No to Argentine Imperialism!!! :pac:

No quiet. It was only after the war that people of the Island were allowed to claim British Citizenship.

Balmed Out

how anyone could consider that the Argentinians have a claim on the Falklands is beyond me.

k.p.h

A mate of mine lived their for 7 years. From the stories he told the place is full of lunatics and squadies(army) and lots of sheep/penguin ****.Also he explained that the people that live their are happy the way things are as wages etc reflect those in the UK but costs are a lot lower so the people their are relatively well off. They would need to be I suppose since the place is effectively a **** hole.

I also heard many a rant about the penguins they are meant to be smelly noisy bastards. Not the big fellas ya see in Happy Feet, more like little smelly ones that were compared to rats on more than one occasion.

Also a session in the Falklands is meant to be a proper session and no tax on the beer so wont cast ya an arm and a leg either.

All in all sounds like a great holiday location if ya like a charming **** heap the size of wales.:p

Mike 1972

RobitTV wrote: »

The Falkland Islands (pronounced Spanish: Islas Malvinas)

The naming thing is not just lingustic They can be referred to in English as the Falklands or the Malvinas Islands in the same way as Londonderry can be referred to as Derry.

As for the question of juristiction over the islands its entirely a matter for the inhabitants although there really should be seat(s) in the Westminster parliament representing the overseas territories like I believe the French do.

Balmed Out wrote: »

how anyone could consider that the Argentinians have a claim on the Falklands is beyond me.

I believe it generally the type of people who would support a territorial claim by the South Ossetians to the Far side of the moon if it conflicted with one by the UK.

k.p.h wrote: »

A mate of mine lived their for 7 years. From the stories he told the place is full of lunatics and squadies(army) and lots of sheep/penguin

Which was he :pac:

KeithAFC

British.

Witcher

KeithAFC wrote: »

British.

Well there it is..Keith's given his verdict..case closed:pac:

slapbangwallop

Whats with all this "Falklands" BS.

Las Malvinas!!!!

stovelid

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Firstly, the majority of the population on the islands has some sort of ancestral connection to Britain and are predominantly English speakinI

The sheep?

mikemac

On another note, it's about time Ireland enforced and pressed their claim on Rockall.
It's been with UN committees for years and years, get it done

Could be valuable one day, it's ours

I'm sure KeithAFC will object though

mike65

mikemac wrote: »

The British Navy has retired their Harrier planes

And they are so short of aircraft carriers they use the French Charles de Gaulle for NATO exercises. It'll be another decade before they have new resources

They've never been so weak, could be a good time for another invasion

The Argies could hardly afford the cost of an invasion, they are still in the financial soup themselves - borrowing to meet public expenditure and er debt repayments.

Mike 1972

mikemac wrote: »

On another note, it's about time Ireland enforced and pressed their claim on Rockall.

Whats the point. If there turns out to be any oil/gas there the Irish government would give all the rights away for two shillings and sixpence.

Let the Danes and Icelanders go halves on it. At least they might find some good use for it.

mike65 wrote: »

The Argies could hardly afford the cost of an invasion, they are still in the financial soup themselves - borrowing to meet public expenditure and er debt repayments.

Err pretty much the same position they were in 1982 ???

The main motivation behind the Argentinians landing there in the first place as to stir up nationalist fervour in the population distracting them from the fact that the Government had reduced their country to a shyteheap.

The main motivation behind Thatcher recapturing the place were pretty similar come to think of it.

I am pie

mike65 wrote: »

The Argies could hardly afford the cost of an invasion, they are still in the financial soup themselves - borrowing to meet public expenditure and er debt repayments.

They probably couldn't afford an invasion but they are far from in the soup economically. They have a trade surplus and are not borrowing at all to meet public expenditure, as effectively no will lend them any money !

KeithAFC

Blay wrote: »

Well there it is..Keith's given his verdict..case closed:pac:

Rightly so. The British volunteers died to save it.

Nforce

cml387 wrote: »

No.

But Chile did supply Britain with any intelligence it had on Argentine military
forces.

And the then Soviet Union reportedly provided the Argentine government with intel on the British Task Force ,through overt overflights and covert submarine operations.

UK special forces were also based in Argentina...mainly observing and reporting from the airfield perimeters where Argentine military aircraft were taking off from in order to carry out missions against the Task Force.

Mike 1972

Nforce wrote: »

And the then Soviet Union reportedly provided the Argentine government with intel on the British Task Force ,through overt overflights and covert submarine operations.

Have my doubts on that one. The USSR and the regieme in Argentina at the time wouldnt have been natural idealogical bedfellows.

charlemont

mikemac wrote: »

On another note, it's about time Ireland enforced and pressed their claim on Rockall.

True indeed.

HavingCrack

I am pie wrote: »

They probably couldn't afford an invasion but they are far from in the soup economically. They have a trade surplus and are not borrowing at all to meet public expenditure, as effectively no will lend them any money !

While they may have a trade surplus the standard of living in Argentina has plummeted dramatically. Something close to 40% are living below the poverty line. It's a hard one to call. Widespread poverty versus IMF domination...

KeithAFC wrote: »

Rightly so. The British volunteers died to save it.

They were professional soldiers Keith, not volunteers, it was their job. I doubt many people, Argentine or British, would willingly die for the Falklands

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Have my doubts on that one. The USSR and the regieme in Argentina at the time wouldnt have been natural idealogical bedfellows.

Cold War politics made for extremely creepy bedfellows so you never know, the enemy of my enemy is my friend etc. However the Argentinian junta was far closer to the US than the Soviet Union from what I remember.

I am pie

HavingCrack wrote: »

While they may have a trade surplus the standard of living in Argentina has plummeted dramatically. Something close to 40% are living below the poverty line. It's a hard one to call. Widespread poverty versus IMF domination...


I was there this year, that's not my experience at least in Buenos Aires. Not at all. New car sales are experiencing incredible growth, unemployment is 7% (not too bad for such a large country in an emerging market) and has experienced dynamic growth over the last 2 years (8 %). Inflation is very high, but wages also are increasing. If they can cool inflation they are reasonably well placed given their status as an emerging market country. I have a lot of friends there and i can tell for certain that the standard of living his increased dramatically since the default in 2001.

Anyway...not AH material !!