Falklands / Malvinas heats up

Discussion in 'International News' started by The Biscuitman, Feb 23, 2010.

  1. Metrogo

    Metrogo Member

    Apr 6, 1999
    Washington Hghts NY
    I've just read snippets of this thread, not the entire thing. But I've gotta say, the British respect for the legitimacy of thievery and military conquest is not only bad for the world, it's bad for them. Good lord, they still respect their own monarchy's land claims within their own nation.

    At bottom, this is what British culture apparently still respects, and it's why they can not overcome the lack of confidence and insecurities they have felt since the end of the war (WW2). They have lost on the false battlefield that is set up in the British psyche, time and time again. They lose wars, they lose colonies, and, rather than celebrate the human rights' gains of the oppressed, they beat themselves up for the loss. It's why now they are so willing to pathetically play second fiddle to American military might. It's also why they miss penalty kicks in the world cup.

    It is sorry and pathetic to listen to the Brits on here talk about the Malvinas. Let them go. For chrissake we have diplomatic relations with Vietnam, where we lost 51,000 + soldiers. Surely, you can respect the dead but do what is right.
     
    1 person likes this.
  2. jcsd

    jcsd Member+

    Jan 27, 2006
    1) Britain is quite entitled to sell fishing rights.

    2) General Assembly resolutions cannot be vetoed, but are advisory only and non-binding.

    3) The US War of Independence was before Britain's retreat from empire. The American War of Independence was quite some time ago, attitudes have changed a bit in the couple of centuries since then.

    4) There was no war of Indian independence.




    It's a total misreading of attitudes tinged with a bit whining. There's no point telling Britain that it sees the Falklands as some great colonial venture, because it doesn't. It really is that simple.


    The main thing really is self-determination. We're not about to sell our friends down the river over an extremely weak Argentina claim. That's not some self-righteous excuse, that really is the way it is.

    Why do you think we keep the Falklands which aren't even economically viable (the possible discovery of oil notwithstanding, thoguh of course that is a very recent development) and of nno strategic importance but let our larger, more strategically important and ecomically valueable colonies go?

    You cannot tella person (or in this case a group of people) their own minds, when their minds are clear on the issue.

    Argentina has also gone gone about trying to acheive it's aims in completely the wrong way.

    Firstly it's claim is so weak as to be insignificant. Take Northern Ireland, I can see why Irish and Repulicans feel the way they do,almost half the population does want to be part of Ireland, it is an integral part of Ireland, their were atrocites commited against the Irish as little time as just over a century ago.

    But with the Falkland Islands the population does not emphatically want to be Argentine, it is not an integral part of Argentina, rather a tiny group of islands 300 miles from Argentina, it was only ever occupied by Argentina for short 3 years which was of course post- British claim and settlement of the islands anyway (thoguh the previous settlement had been removed at that time).

    Secondly it's gone about it in completly the wrong way. One of it's biggest mistakes was to be extremely antagonistic to the islanders. Though the claim is very weak, Argentina could've got the islands is if it could've sold Argentine sovereignity to the islanders. Instead it's been nothing but incfredibly antagonistic towards them.


    Argentina's other huge mistake was to invade the islands, now it has zero chance of getting them. Britain is not going to fight a war alose 258 lives just to hand the islands to the Argentina by negoitation. There really is nothing to talk about the issue with the two counttries, Argentina will never have sovereignity over the Falklands, as simple as that
     
  3. argentine soccer fan

    Staff Member

    Jan 18, 2001
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Club:
    CA Boca Juniors
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    Seriously, what do they teach you at your schools?

    Never mind your knowledge of the Malvinas issue. You have a lot to learn about the history of your nation in general.

    About the India war of independence, you can start here:

    http://indian-history.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_indian_war_of_independence_causes

    If you're interested in what the UN determined about the Malvinas, read this:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=cN...resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false
     
  4. jcsd

    jcsd Member+

    Jan 27, 2006
    Again with the telling peole their own minds. It jsut doesn't ring true I'm afraid

    Do you have any understanding of this conflcit at all? Who are the people Britain are oppressing in the Falklands Islands? We have diplomatic relations with Argentina, doesn't mean their getting the Islands.

    Do you understand that this latest flare up was engineered by Argetina when it tore up a joint agreement with the UK about oil exploration in the area, otherwise this exploration would be a joint venture with Argentina.

    To be honest linking the conflcit to World Cup penalties is a pretty sure sign of trolling, I can't really be bothered.
     
  5. jcsd

    jcsd Member+

    Jan 27, 2006
    No, I don't I actually know a reasonable bit abpout the history of India.On e of my ancestors was an ambassador with the East India Company who was knighted for his key role in the defeat of the Tipu Sultan which led to British control of India. Another one of my ancestors was Indian migrant worker.

    There were mutnies and rebellions in India, thoguh none really deserve or are usually given the titles of "wars of independec"e), plus the Seepoy Rebellion which you cite happened 90 years before India gained independence. India did not gain independence by the barrel of the gun, it did it with the assent of the British government of the time.
     
  6. argentine soccer fan

    Staff Member

    Jan 18, 2001
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Club:
    CA Boca Juniors
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    Excellent. Since you know so much, what can you tell me about the Jallianwala Bagh massacre? Was that also part of the process of decolonization based on the principle of self determination?
     
  7. jcsd

    jcsd Member+

    Jan 27, 2006
    Before the retreat from empire. I am not saying Britain was never colonialist, it was the biggest colonial power in the World at one point. I'm not saying it never did anything despicable either. The Armritsar massace happened at the same time the Black and Tans were committing atrocities in Ireland. The justification of the perptartors being Britain was ta war at the time and would not tolerate insurrection. However these views do not reflect current views. Post World War II Britain embarked on a policy of decolonization.
     
  8. Leedsunited

    Leedsunited Member

    Jun 14, 2007
    Yorkshire
    Club:
    Leeds United AFC

    What?

    The US have happily meddled in Latin America (Cuba) or gone along with Britihs sovereignty over islands (Bermuda, Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean) when it suited them to open a military base, change a government on the whim of a corporation, (and in the process assisting in gross human rights abuses) (google Jacobo Arbenz) and otherwise do as they please for the last fifty years or so that they've been powerful enough...and it's not like the US hasn't got it's own claims to islands under counter-claims from other nations which are much closer geographically and there being no historical indiginous United States population.

    Oh and we were probably quite willing to let the Falklands go, the people who live there determine their own fate. Argentina's claim that their right to decide because they are not indiginous is not valid is hugely hypocrital considering their own history and considering that neither was the Argentine population replaced prior to 1833.
     
  9. argentine soccer fan

    Staff Member

    Jan 18, 2001
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Club:
    CA Boca Juniors
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina


    A question not just to you but to all the British posters. Based on Britain's "decolonization" policy that you mention, if there were no people living in the Malvinas -rather than the less than 3000 who are there now- do you think Britain would give up its claim to the Islands and to the resources of the South Atlantic that are near the Islands?
     
  10. Caesar

    Caesar Moderator
    Staff Member

    Mar 3, 2004
    Oztraya
    Argentina's claim on the Falklands, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands can basically be summed up as inherited Spanish colonial rights trumping British colonial rights because they were there first. Neither Argentina nor Britain have any inherent connection to the Islands beyond their colonial acquisition of it.

    Given that, possession is nine-tenths of the law and the will of the current inhabitants (regardless of what the Argentines think of them) is the other tenth.

    Since Argentine possession was two centuries ago and for a sixtieth of the time that the British have been in charge, and the inhabitants are universally in favor of the current status quo, it's not really a matter for serious discussion.
     
    1 person likes this.
  11. Leedsunited

    Leedsunited Member

    Jun 14, 2007
    Yorkshire
    Club:
    Leeds United AFC
    Who knows? History suggests not. The Argentine occupation of the uninhabited South Georgia, Sandwich and Thule island was ended by the Royal Navy after the Faklands invasion.

    Not just us though, see the three examples of uninhabited islands that the US claim.
     
  12. argentine soccer fan

    Staff Member

    Jan 18, 2001
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Club:
    CA Boca Juniors
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    Then if that is the case don't come here preaching self determination. That is not why you are there.

    And that's a good point you make about the South Georgia, Sandwich and Thule Islands. If Britain claims the right of self determination, why did the British remove the Argentine civilians who were in one of the the South Georgia Islands and who raised the Argentine flag, when there are no British civilians living there, nor in fact anybody living there who wanted to be a British citizens?

    Obviously the Argentines you removed wanted to be Argentine, that's why they raised the Argentine flag.

    Didn't the Argentines you removed also have the rights of self determination? How many people have to be in an Island for it to start to count as self determination? Or does it count only if they want to be British?
     
  13. jcsd

    jcsd Member+

    Jan 27, 2006
    Argentina's claim to the islands is very weak anyway as I said, so not defintely, but it would change the entire complexion of the dispute.

    It really is not about resources, the UK spends more money than it gets from the Falklands, oil may change that, but like I say that's a very recent development.
     
  14. Leedsunited

    Leedsunited Member

    Jun 14, 2007
    Yorkshire
    Club:
    Leeds United AFC

    Struggling to find evidence of the fisherman.....I can find evidence of a garrison of Argentinian special forces who clandestinely built a base on Thule and attacked the Royal Marine garrison of South Georgia.....not really the same thing is it.

    If Argentine fisherman landed on one of the outlying UK islands would they not face passport control? Landing/Harbour fees? Customs regulations? And ultimately immigration issues, given that they'd be ashore where they had no right to be.
     
  15. jcsd

    jcsd Member+

    Jan 27, 2006
    Shut it
     
  16. jcsd

    jcsd Member+

    Jan 27, 2006
    Do you honestly believe there was any issue of self-determination in removing the Argentinians who tried to occupy South Georgia? Personally I don't think you do.
     
  17. argentine soccer fan

    Staff Member

    Jan 18, 2001
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Club:
    CA Boca Juniors
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    I'm just trying to see if there is consistency in your position. If the Islands are deserted why do they belong to Britain, and why did Britain remove the Argentine civilians who landed there? Is there a minimum number of people who have to be there for it to count as self determination and if so what is that number?


    That is not true. Fishing rights have been very profitable. The Japanese in particular but also other nations pay a lot of money to Britain for fishing rights in the South Atlantic.

    Britain claims a two hundred mile zone around the islands as their own, even though obviously looking at the map some of that zone they claim and patrol is much closer to Argentina's mainland than to the Malvinas.

    Is that claim based also on the right of self determination? Do the fish also want to be British?
     
  18. Caesar

    Caesar Moderator
    Staff Member

    Mar 3, 2004
    Oztraya
    ASF, I respect your opinion but you're being more than a little disingenuous. Argentina's historical claim is just as thin as Britain's, and the only way you can make it stand up is take us back 200 years ago when the 'we were the colonial occupiers before you were the colonial occupiers' argument holds a bit more weight.
     
  19. jcsd

    jcsd Member+

    Jan 27, 2006
    It is true, I'm afraid.

    Fishing rights generate $40 million a year, but that's not that much when you realize the UK spent $100 million last year on the Falkland Islands militarily alone. The Falklands War cost $1.2 billion. Even without the military complexion the fishing money would still go entirely to the islanders

    There is international law, can't say that I know it that governs territorial waters. Britain's quite within it's right sto do what it does
     
  20. jcsd

    jcsd Member+

    Jan 27, 2006
    Well sorry to me I don't think your being sincere, the analogy is absurd.
     
  21. argentine soccer fan

    Staff Member

    Jan 18, 2001
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Club:
    CA Boca Juniors
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    The Islands were uninhabited, nobody lived there, so how could they have gone through immigration and customs?

    An Argentine businessman, Constantino Davidoff, bought the rights of an abandoned whaling station in 1979, on one of the South Georgia Islands, at a time when the Island was deserted. He took some workers with him, the fishermen I was referring to.

    At that point, there were Argentine civilians living in the Island. So, when the Argentine Special forces went into the island and raised the Argentine flag, there were Argentine civilians there in that Island who wanted to be Argentine, and nobody who wanted to be British.

    My question is, does the right of self determination apply to them, and if not then why? Why did the British armed forces removed them by force?

    I am asking because my contention is that Britain's rights in the South Atlantic are based on the might of their arms, not on any legitimate claims to sovereignty or rights of self determination.
     
  22. leg_breaker

    leg_breaker Member

    Dec 23, 2005
    Give them up to who? No-one has a bigger claim to the islands than Britain. Argentina visited briefly two hundred years ago, amongst several other nations. If proximity means ownership then I'm taking over the parts of my neighbour's back yard which are closer to my house than his.

    Btw if you want to override the wishes of the inhabitants and take back something you had centuries ago, shouldn't you give Argentina back to Spain?
     
  23. argentine soccer fan

    Staff Member

    Jan 18, 2001
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Club:
    CA Boca Juniors
    Nat'l Team:
    Argentina
    No, Argentina has been recognized by Spain as an independent nation, so that's ridiculous. But Britain should give Gibraltar back to Spain, as well as get out of the South Atlantic.
     
  24. Leedsunited

    Leedsunited Member

    Jun 14, 2007
    Yorkshire
    Club:
    Leeds United AFC
    Had to search for what you were on about, Apparently Davidoff was a contractor for a whaling company, whose station on South Georgia (which was not uninhabited at the time), and the first visit he made what constituted an illegal entry, for which he apologised at the British Embassy in Buenos Aires and gave notice of his intention to return. He was told that he must land at the occupied settlement of Grytviken, before proceeding to the whaling station, as he would arriving at any other nations immigration authority. He didn't own the land either he was acting as a salvage contrator for Christian Salvesen, the shipping/transport/whaling company who wanted their whaling station dismantled.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Salvesen

    When he returned he disregarded these instructions and landed again, in an unauthorised manner at Leith Harbour, which resulted in another foreign ministry protest and the despatch of HMS Endurance and 22 Royal Marines to kick them out. They left (and did so of their own accord) before another Argentine navy vessel arrived with a troop of marines and stores.

    Thus it was not, as you put it, self-determination,it was a disregard for the law, followed by occupation of sovereign territory by a foreign military force.
     
  25. Leedsunited

    Leedsunited Member

    Jun 14, 2007
    Yorkshire
    Club:
    Leeds United AFC

    Gibraltar was signed over to Britain by the Spanish in 1713 at the Treaty of Utrecht, and again, the inhabitants rejected an agreed shared-sovereignty offer that the governments of Britain and Spain had effectively prepared together.

    Still, I suppose the Spanish are grateful for the Argentine attempts to help out there.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Algeciras
     

Share This Page