But there is nothing in your view that does not also apply to Argentina itself. All people in all times and at all places try to have as much influence as they can wherever they can however they can. When you can send fighter aircraft down in half a day and ships down in a few days, what does distance matter?
I have English, French and Spanish blood, so I can be said to be a poster child for colonialism. But this issue is not about whose children we are. I'm not trying to start a fight here, but I do believe that the British, and Americans as well, have a very one sided view of the conflict, and they need to be educated about how other people outside their borders see it, because these are the types of issues that lead to you being hated by so many. The fact that Argentines are descendants of colonists is irrelevant. In Argentina -and indeed most of Latin America- people believe that a colonialist or imperialist situation exists because it is a fact that a rich and powerful nation is using its military might in order to steal resources from a poorer, less powerful nation. In addition, Latin Americans are aware that the UN, the international body set up precisely to deal with these types of disputes, and of which Britain is a member nation, has declared that it is a colonialist situation, and so people see that Britain only gives lip service to the UN when it's in their interest. The fact that Britain hypocritically uses the roughly three thousand people who are in the Islands as an excuse to arrogantly claim moral superiority while using their military might to act as though they own they South Atlantic, makes their position even more contemptible in the eyes of most Argentines and of most Latin Americans in general. I'm talking about an arrogance that is even reflected in some posts here. So, if we are to believe this poster, the British are a moral people and the Argentines were just told to leave, so they left. I am sure he means well and is only repeating what he was taught. But seriously. Is that what they teach you in Britain? The inhabitant of the Malvinas were told to leave, yes, but at the point of a gun, by an invading army, after the Americans had plundered Puerto Luis. Here is the story that they don't teach you in the British schools: http://elmalvinense.iespana.es/elmalvinense/vernet.htm At any rate, if the British want to continue using the South Atlantic as a cash cow by selling fishing rights, and now by exploring for oil, while at the same time claiming arrogantly that the reason they are there is that they are the moral people who are doing it all for the principle of self determination of 3000 people, when in fact everybody in Latin America knows that they are the ones who kicked out the governor and the people who were living there and usurped power, then I guess there is nothing we can do about it because they have the more powerful weapons. But if you're going to plunder while claiming the moral high ground, then you shouldn't wonder why when you leave your borders so many people hate you with such passion. As a grandson of an English woman, as somebody who has English relatives, and somebody who sincerely loves England, it saddens me to see such hatred towards the English, and it also saddens me to see demagogues exploit the hatred to their own advantage. But, as long as the British have such an arrogant and hypocritical attitude towards the issue, I fear these are wounds that will not be healed.
Ive been racking my brain about your name. Now I remember... I have always thought in the back of my mind, "Cheese and Oatcakes". I have always thought that the world was unkind, "Cheese and Oatcakes". Do I have to spell it out ? "C-H-E-E-S-E A-N-D O-A-T-C-A-K-E-S", oh no. Man or machine (Man or machine) Keep yourself clean (Keep yourself clean) Or be a has-been (Ah-ah) Like Dinosaur, oh oh-oh. Man of advise (Man of advise) For ev'rything nice (Ev'rything nice) You'd better think twice (Ah-ah) At least once more, oh oh.
This thread is laughable. Argentina has about as much right to the Falklands as I do over the Moon. So, a couple of Argies lived there for a few years two centuries ago, who cares? Argentina has zero claim over the islands, anything else is just posturing by a desperate government.
So? Again, there is nothing here that does not apply to Argentina itself. Going back into history to try to obtain some sort of justification for a policy is utterly worthless. There is no such thing as moral owners of land. The vast majority of people in North and South America don't believe in it either - we can't or else we would have to admit we are living on land not ours. What matters is what the situation is now. And the situation now is that the people on the island don't want a change, and no one who wants a change has the military strength to make it different.
I think you're extreme hatred clouds your view or like the rest of Argentina you've been taught something that simply isn't true. Either way we have a considerably stronger claim to the Island over Argentina. Our first settlements there existed before your country even existed. So saying we are only there for resources makes your argument look plain foolish. An amusing thing about chasing the UK through the UN is, we are one of the 5 countries with veto power so even if there were a ruling against the UK (which, clearly there wont be) we could veto any resolutions anyway. Not only are the Argentinian government hypocrites they are also trying to get elected by going on this crusade against the evil British for daring to defend their own. If your government cared about it's own people it would work on fix the problems in your own country which are terrible. Also this considerably complaining about colonial powers and then you're trying to colonise something you've never owned. More than just a little hypocritical. As for the hatred for the English, well again I think your view is clouded, maybe Argentinians hate the English but we care little about that since they've proven they are no ally of ours. The real world says differently; http://nation-branding.info/2008/10/01/anholts-nation-brand-index-2008-released/
your very own Foreign Office disagrees with you. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/25/falklands-sovereignty-argentina-britain the resolution exists: http://www.falklands.info/history/resolution2065.html however, it's a General Assembly resolution, and as such not binding to member states. vetos don't apply either. it has to be noted though that while the resolution calls the dispute a case of colonialism which should be ended, it also calls for "the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)" to be taken into account.
I have read that report and like everyone else disagree with it but then it is just one persons view and not the view of the population. As for the resolution, that's not really what I was talking about since that resolution doesn't call for any action to be taken other than it calling for talks to take place. I think during the 1960-82 the British government would have considered giving the islands too the Argentinian people based on a move away from colonisation, however the people of the islands and the true owners of the islands staunchly disagreed as they have always considered themselves British and effectively scuppered talks which was their right to do so. And then the 82' war ended any concessions the British would consider or do for the Argentinian people. Will Argentina give aid to Chille given what has happened overnight?
You know you're not really helping your view by quoting the Guardian, a newspaper with a strong anti-British bias.
clearly not everybody else disagrees with it. quite a few people within the FO didn't question it's contents. and wouldn't you think that someone who's taken the time to write 17,000 words on a subject knows more about it then you? whether the population agrees with it is irrelevant when it comes to the question of whether it's historically accurate or not. of course they are not going to like the conclusion, but that's besides the point. since it's not binding the resolution is irrelevant as well. I highly doubt that. for the British government it has never been about anything other than resources and an important strategic base. whatever they claim otherwise. of course the people consider themselves British, they've been exported there from Britain after all. but that's like claiming Northern Ireland is historically yours, end of, because a large part of the population considers themselves British. it's the same thing the Chinese do in Tibet. I know, you are going to accuse me of insulting your precious soul again, but ASF is right, your arrogant attitude of the British being the high moral standard of the this earth is rather laughable.
Actually it is the people who make the decisions so their opinion is of the highest relevance. Who votes the parties in do you think? Or do they just magically appear in power? Also do you realise the British government signed the communications act without even involving the islanders? The British government were willing to make concessions before the war. From here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Falkland_Islands As for calling us arrogant and taking the high ground, well that is rather easy given the state your country is in and the actions of your government, heck even African states could take the high ground against your government. Then to suggest you colonise the islands whilst lamenting British colonisation is hilarious and especially coming from Argentina a country built on colonisation. Argentina is doing nothing more than trying to distract its own people from the state of it's own country especially considering the lack of support your leader has in the upcoming elections. The point all of these latin countries seem keen to over look is the right of self-determination. The islanders are British and wish to remain part of our nation.
so, not quite so moral anymore suddenly, he? oh, and btw, you do realise I'm neither Argentine nor British?
Well I said the English people are moral, politicians not so much (regardless of country). Interesting, so where are you from?
It's pointless, Argentina will never get the Falklands: 1) Their claim is extremely flimsy 2) Britain's retreat from empire has entirely been based on self-determination, the Falklands Islanders catergorically do not want to be part of Argentina. 3) Since the Falklands War any British governemnt that even could even talk about ceding might as well start looking for alterntaive employment. In summary Argentina has no right to the Falklands and there's nothing they can do about it, so stop crying about it.
In that case we in Canada should give Victoria island back to you, but wait there was a naval law passed that made them rightfully Canada's same law that would make the Malvinas Argentinas, hmmmmmmm
Hmm I think think he made some very good sense. And you calling someone a hypocrit is not an insult, sir .
Sorry, but this point doesn't hold water. There were hardly any natural resources known in 1982, and when your government invaded, put pictures of Royal Marines lying face down being searched in direct breach of the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war into the international media, then making the laughable excuse that it was to show that Argentina had the 'best intentions', they gave up all rights to access either the islands or their resources. Argentina, with those actions made the Falkands and regaining and keeping them a matter of intense national pride. Argentina's actions at the time ensured we'd never consider the issue of sovereignty, so you should probably look towards blaming your own government. One somewhat ironic point, it was the Argentines mining parts of the island used for grazing animals that forced the islanders, in the absence of Argentina fulfilling it's moral duty to pay for their clearance, to look to other areas to make money. I apologise if it seems like I'm being unfair on this issue, I have nothing against Argentina. My favourite restaurant, one of my best friends and even my favourite Leeds United player are Argentine, however I had to grow up with my father affected by what he saw fighting an unecessary and for Argentina, unwinnable war and I would consider it an insult to the memory of our dead, should any government of the UK relinquish British sovereignty that 258 of our soldiers gave their lives to re-establish. No British government, because of 1982, would survive even negotiating sovereignty with Argentina, and for that you can blame Galtieri, Anaya and co, not the British.
Do you not consider the British acting like they own the South Atlantic and selling fishing rights to countries like Japan an explotaition of natural resources? And as far as your other point, the matter of how an illegal government behaved in 1982 has nothing to do with the issue of sovereignty. That is nothing but a strawman. I don't agree with Galtieri's actions, but we were victims of the Junta as well, much more so than the British. We should be able to debate the sovereignty of the Malvinas without making it about Galtieri's invasion and the behavior of his regime. That regime was not the legal and constitutional government of Argentina. So I wonder if they forgot to veto resolution 2065, among others. http://www.falklands.info/history/resolution2065.html Right. Self determination. Britain stands by the principle of self-determination when it's in their interest. When a couple of thousand people in the Malvinas -who could fit comfortably on a small British warship on their way to Britain - want to be British and stay in the Islands, then the British will fight for them. But on the other hand, when millions and millions of people in the American colonies, the Indian subcontinent and other places wanted independence, where was self determination? Didn't they have to fight a bloody war against Britain in order to get it? The principle of self determination is applied by Britain when it's in their self interest only. Yeah, I appreciate that. we can debate this issue, but it doesn't mean we should have ill-feelings personally. As I said in a previous post, my grandmother was an immigrant from England. When we were kids she always talked to us about the beauty of England, and later in life when I got a chance to go visit England and got to see and experience some of the things she'd told me as a kid, it was one of the great experiences of my life. So, I'm not an English hater. But it doesn't mean I agree that Britain should have any business being in the South Atlantic and plundering its resources.
Right. Self determination. Britain stands by the principle of self-determination when it's in their interest. When a couple of thousand people in the Malvinas want to be British they will fight for them, but when millions and millions of people in the American colonies, the Indian subcontinent and other places wanted independence, where was self determination? Didn't they have to fight a bloody war against Britain in order to get it?[/QUOTE] Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe the resolution called for any direct action hence the lack of a veto. We could if we wished make a joke of the UN by blocking all negotiations that don't suit us but we choose not too either by special powers or just making it uncomfortable for anyone involved by indirectly influencing the situation. It should also be clear to the Argentinian people is the UN is effectively useless against the UK (rightly or wrongly). Britain can sell whatever license it pleases in it's own waters, that's a legitimate action that's also carried out by many other countries around the world. As for the American colonies and the Indian content, you can't compare actions of the same government over a different time line like that. That was a colonial government vs the government of the past 100 years. One was seeking to support and grow the British empire and the other recognised self-determination and the fact an empire was no longer wise or fair in some cases. As for when it's own interests, we wouldn't of let any of the colonies go if it were in our interests since most were chosen for a reason that was economically sound to us.