Falkland islands - British or Argentine?

Nforce · 03-10-2011 03:55PM

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.

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.

Maybe,maybe not... perhaps we'll find out next year when the records go public?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7085117.ece

Maybe we'll also find out how prepared Thatcher was to nuke Buenos Aires

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/nov/22/books.france

cherryghost · 03-10-2011 03:59PM

Last year there was a mass celebration when the first Falklands resident got their Argentine Passport. Not that it justifies any case. Argentina wants land that isn't their own, never was and probably never will be. The Falklands has been British territory ever since Argentina was founded, so why should it be theirs?

tbh this should be a debate on Gibraltar, there's a more valid argument against that.

Armin_Tamzarian · 03-10-2011 04:09PM

bayern282 wrote: »

As practically the whole populace are UK descendents and Anglophone, has to be British really.The war was all a manipulation by the Thatcher administration.

What sort of accent would they have down there, anyone know?

It's a sort of bad British accent, somewhat similar to Australian / New Zealand.

whubee wrote: »

Its all down to the oil, if theres enough of it there the islands will be staying British for some time as they have something to offer.

If not all Argentina has to do is sit back and point and laugh with all it has to offer while blockading the tiny population, cutting its sole monthly Chile/Arg flight* and influencing other south american countries do the same (which it is actively and presently working on).

There are flights from Chile once a week and flights from the UK twice a week.
Not to mention the numerous cargo ships that have Stanley as part of their route.

The place is a dump and nobody in their right minds would want to live there.
Oil is probably the only reason the British spend so much money on the place each year.
That and the place is basicaly a massive training ground.

Bit ridiculous to claim that it should be Argentinian.
Everyone there wants to remain British.
It's not like Ireland where there is a native opressed people.

gav86mn · 03-10-2011 04:12PM

argentine islands, simple

Armin_Tamzarian · 03-10-2011 04:15PM

gav86mn wrote: »

argentine islands, simple

They were settled by the British before Argentina really existed.
Is your argument that 200-300 mile proximity decrees ownership cos in that case we're French.

ejmaztec · 03-10-2011 04:25PM

Let's turf everybody off any land that wasn't their's in the first place. Should be fun when the 70 million come back here.:pac: At least there won't be any more ghost estates.

johngalway · 03-10-2011 04:31PM

ejmaztec wrote: »

Let's turf everybody off any land that wasn't their's in the first place. Should be fun when the 70 million come back here.:pac: At least there won't be any more ghost estates.

No they won't!

You haven't gone back far enough in the population history of this island

They will likely be shunted on to the larger island to our East.

ejmaztec · 03-10-2011 05:06PM

johngalway wrote: »

No they won't!

You haven't gone back far enough in the population history of this island

They will likely be shunted on to the larger island to our East.

This place'll be empty if that happens, and with the remainder taking off to the Basque region.:(

Son Of A Vidic · 03-10-2011 05:13PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If you speak English, why don't you recognise the English version of the name?

Becasue the correct version is Spanish, anyway why are you so bothered?

ejmaztec · 03-10-2011 05:21PM

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Becasue the correct version is Spanish, anyway why are you so bothered?

The correct version's Dutch i.e. Sebald.

pickarooney · 03-10-2011 05:27PM

The original inhabitants of Argentina were apparently the "Diaguitas." This obviously means they were Irish settlers who greeted the marauding Spanish invaders with the traditional Irish greeting.

The islands are Irish.

Fratton Fred · 03-10-2011 05:50PM

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Becasue the correct version is Spanish, anyway why are you so bothered?

Why is the correct version Spanish? The Dutch were there first.

I also get upset when people get their, there and they're mixed up.....

4leto · 03-10-2011 05:57PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Why is the correct version Spanish? The Dutch were there first.

I also get upset when people get their, there and they're mixed up.....

The British claim is down to legalities in international law. Now behind closed doors and privately the British claim is very dodgy. If it was to go down to legalities the British would have to concede the Islands to Argentina.

So it will never be settled by international law. Personally my heart says they are British only because the people living there want that. But that is not a reason why the islands should be british.

For example we use to have a claim on Northern Ireland to spite the majority wanting it to stay british.

I think Britain should agree to split the potential oil revenue.

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CC4QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ejiltalk.org%2Fwhy-the-falklands-dispute-will-probably-never-go-to-court%2F&ei=u-iJTvf6Gaua1AXXyrzVDw&usg=AFQjCNGQttc_rE73MnQjmaoFTsdAq8PE8w&sig2=HmmB6NEEC1-l_m1-_gNHcw

ejmaztec · 03-10-2011 06:07PM

pickarooney wrote: »

The original inhabitants of Argentina were apparently the "Diaguitas." This obviously means they were Irish settlers who greeted the marauding Spanish invaders with the traditional Irish greeting.

The islands are Irish.

..and to back that up, there was this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Dickson_(Falklands)

regi · 03-10-2011 06:16PM

One of the basic tenets of international law (and the UN!) is the right to self-determination. If the people who live there want to be associated with Britain, speak English and call their islands the Falklands, then it must be. Even if you ignore this, there's a great deal of history that makes the situation clear.

The only question of national identity in this thread is the sad fact that so many Irish people identify their Irishness by how kneejerk anti-British they are.

Where To · 03-10-2011 06:24PM

Were the French not there first?

4leto · 03-10-2011 06:25PM

regi wrote: »

One of the basic tenets of international law (and the UN!) is the right to self-determination. If the people who live there want to be associated with Britain, speak English and call their islands the Falklands, then it must be. Even if you ignore this, there's a great deal of history that makes the situation clear.

The only question of national identity in this thread is the sad fact that so many Irish people identify their Irishness by how kneejerk anti-British they are.

That is not a tenet of international law, no-more then China have a rightful claim on Tibet because the majority claim to be chinese (The Chinese repopulated tibet with Chinese citizens till they were a majority)

Or let us imagine a german family opted to live on Rockall and decided they wanted the Island to be German.

Britain Know they do not have a legitamit claim on these island if it came down to international law they would have to concede them.

Manic Moran · 03-10-2011 06:34PM

For example we use to have a claim on Northern Ireland to spite the majority wanting it to stay british.

The operative in that is 'use' (used). The fact that the claim no longer is extant is a realisation of the fact that the majority want it to stay British and it's not worth the hassle.

NTM

ejmaztec · 03-10-2011 06:39PM

4leto wrote: »

That is not a tenet of international law, no-more then China have a rightful claim on Tibet because the majority claim to be chinese (The Chinese repopulated tibet with Chinese citizens till they were a majority)

Or let us imagine a german family opted to live on Rockall and decided they wanted the Island to be German.

Britain Know they do not have a legitamit claim on these island if it came down to international law they would have to concede them.

We could change the name to Feckall, which would be a more apt name for it.

4leto · 03-10-2011 06:40PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

The operative in that is 'use' (used). The fact that the claim no longer is extant is a realisation of the fact that the majority want it to stay British and it's not worth the hassle.

NTM

I just used that as a lazy example, but borders and claims on territory is complicated.

OK Take Georgia the Russians recently annexed part of that land, in areas that had majority of russians living there, nobody has or will recognise that claim.

Or Israel another mess from similar sentiments, a claim on a land based on a majority.

4leto · 03-10-2011 06:43PM

ejmaztec wrote: »

We could change the name to Feckall, which would be a more apt name for it.

I wouldn't any geologist worth his salt says there is oil there, but deep oil, so something for the future.

It is ours, although technically closer to Britain it is on our continental shelf, so we would win any claim to it.

Richard · 03-10-2011 06:52PM

johngalway wrote: »

No they won't!

You haven't gone back far enough in the population history of this island

They will likely be shunted on to the larger island to our East.

At least there hasn't been any intermarrying which might mike things difficult...

tommyhaas · 03-10-2011 07:25PM

4leto wrote: »

For example we use to have a claim on Northern Ireland to spite the majority wanting it to stay british.

That argument always winds me up. Its like saying that if a slight majority of Cork people wanted independence, that a boarder should be drawn around Cork and Independence declared on the basis that a slight majority want that. Its essentially what's happened with Northern Ireland

Regarding the Falklands, the Argentines were only interested in the Falklands when they found out about the oil, so fcuk them. The Falklands are British and should remain so

4leto · 03-10-2011 07:34PM

tommyhaas wrote: »

That argument always winds me up. Its like saying that if a slight majority of Cork people wanted independence, that a boarder should be drawn around Cork and Independence declared on the basis that a slight majority want that. Its essentially what's happened with Northern Ireland

Regarding the Falklands, the Argentines were only interested in the Falklands when they found out about the oil, so fcuk them. The Falklands are British and should remain so

The Argentinians had a claim on those Islands since 1828, they didn't even know what oil was then.

Personally I would say the Islands are British, because of the history of the people living there. But that legally does not make it so.

If it was to go to legalities the Argentinians would win the case. The british privately know this, which is why it will be never settled in a court.

Eggy Baby! · 03-10-2011 10:12PM

They should just share those ****ty islands.

LaFlammeRouge · 03-10-2011 10:30PM

4leto wrote: »

The Argentinians had a claim on those Islands since 1828, they didn't even know what oil was then.

The British claimed the unpopulated island at the time in 1765.

4leto · 03-10-2011 10:46PM

LaFlammeRouge wrote: »

The British claimed the unpopulated island at the time in 1765.

As far as I know they ten abandoned them and Spain secceeded the Islands to Argentina when that country was granted independence from Spain in 1816 so its a question of ownership then.

But I am sure there will be counter claims, but the British case for the Islands is not on very solid ground.

Richard · 03-10-2011 11:23PM

4leto wrote: »

If it was to go to legalities the Argentinians would win the case. The british privately know this, which is why it will be never settled in a court.

In which court would this be heard?

I don't agree with your premise. Self-determination goes a long, long way.

4leto · 03-10-2011 11:30PM

Its just a case of international law which the british case is shaky. Also Argentina is gathering support from the region to back their claim.

Heres a link

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCwQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ejiltalk.org%2Fwhy-the-falklands-dispute-will-probably-never-go-to-court%2F&ei=Rr6JTuyVKOOb1AXCrUk&usg=AFQjCNGQttc_rE73MnQjmaoFTsdAq8PE8w

gigino · 03-10-2011 11:36PM

If the Falklands belong to Argentina, then the Canaries belong to Morocco. And so on.

Actually the British could have had the Canaries but let them go to the Spanish as they did not see any great use for them. Twas before the auld airplane + cheap holidays in the sun. Anyway they are much closer to Africa than Spain, so let some anti-British patriot start a thread on the Spanish giving back their colony.
All of the people who live on the Falklands are loyal to Britain.

Falkland islands - British or Argentine?

Comments