Falklands (Americans View)

S

superbot

Guest
Kinda like the british dumping colonist into Ireland and having the colonies say "we want to be owned by britain" and then "britain is there because they want us to be!"

Here's one for you - The Chinese in San Fransisco suddenly all say that they want San Fransisco to be owned by China...does this mean we give San Fransisco to China? They're the majority assume.

oh yeah...and 3,000 people in the Falklands should definately decide the economic fate of 40 million in Argentina
Or a whole bunch of Europeans coming to America and been displacing the native Indians and then wanting to run the place!! Grow up!
 

B_nyvin

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Posts
399
Media
0
Likes
23
Points
103
Age
39
Location
Pensacola FL
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
There is a difference - the Falklands were uninhabited before hand, it is nothing like your crazy San Francisco Metaphor.

Well then by most viewpoints all the islands other then the northern half of East Falkland are uninhabited because all of them together have a combined population of under 160 people...mostly sheep herders on the coast (again, excluding the northern half of East Falkland)
 
Last edited:

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
We have a legal process for resolving such disputes - the UN. Argentina is in breach of the UN requirements on this one by not agreeing to self-determination by the people who live on the Falkland Islands.

Argentina may feel that the UN is wrong - and should therefore argue its case through the UN. Argentina has been trying this for years and hasn't persuaded the UN. The reality appears to be that Argentina doesn't have an argument that holds water.

What I find incredible is that some people (outside of Argentina) seem so keen to ignore the rights of the Falkland Islanders and of the UK and even to condone the Argentinian invasion of the Falkland Islands. Imagine the wrong that would be done to these people were Argentina ever permitted to occupy these islands. Would they become refugees? Would they be prisoners (as immediately after the invasion and during the Falklands War)? Would they be forced to learn Spanish (as Argentina insisted at the time of the Falkland War)? Would their human rights be abused? - over and above the abuse through infringing their right to self-determination? IMO the UN legal position encapsulates the moral position. Argentinian occupation of these British islands would be morally abhorrent and legally wrong. The Falkland Islands belong to the British people who live there - in the terms of a UK newspaper at the time of the Falklands War they are "as British as Portland Bill" (a headland on the south coast of England).
 
Last edited:

helgaleena

Sexy Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Posts
5,475
Media
7
Likes
43
Points
193
Location
Wisconsin USA
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Female
Why's that Helgaleena?

Interesting thread btw..

I view the UN as the only, far too weak, system in place to curb corporate colonialism. As an Earth worshiper it constantly appalls me what humans will do in the name of greed to make a quick profit at the expense of our host organism.
 

D_Harvey Schmeckel

Sexy Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2006
Posts
549
Media
0
Likes
50
Points
163
Re: "Blue states- liberal states."

Blue state/red state is one of the most horribly harmful memes to come out of the Bush years, one I thought the election of Obama might have done something to end. (Until and including 2000, red= challenger party, blue= incumbent party in those color maps on election day.) Virginia was the only state to be literally torn asunder by the Civil War, and any such divisiveness in the future would once again likely be more destructive here than elsewhere.

I live on a "blue" block (which I know from working on election days for the Dems) in a "blue" neighborhood in a "blue" city in a "red" county in a state that can only be considered either purple or red/blue striped.
 
7

798686

Guest
Seems about time to resurrect this thread.

Hmm - increased Argentine sabre-rattling. What to make of it?

To be honest, I'm not sure their claim holds up to close scrutiny. Ok - they're the nearest landmass (still not very near), and umm...that's about it. The islands have been in Britain's possession for over 300 years, before Argentina was a nation anyway (at which point 'Argentina' was occupied by the Spanish who also - like the British with the Falklands - moved people in to live there). I'm also not aware that the Falklands were actually inhabited before Britain came along anyway?

I do agree with self-determination, and I'm not sure centuries of possession can be over-turned (along with the wishes of the inhabitants) because a relatively nearby nation thinks the islands should belong to them. If we determined these things by proximity, it would cause all sorts of problems - in relation to Spanish enclaves in North Africa, French colonies around the world, Jewish possession of Israel, and even America's claim to Alaska, sooo...

I also think the way Argentina is approaching this is completely counter-productive. I'm not actually against the idea of a hand-over (as with Hong Kong) or joint-sovereignty (maybe give the Falklands semi-independence, with close links to both UK and Argentina?) maybe a generation down the line, however - we could only do that with a nation that has proved itself to be trustworthy, and sympathetic to the islanders - which is a long way from the current situation. If they want to make progress, they need to be far more constructive - opening links with both the UK and the Falklands - legalising the Falklands flag, etc - and generally behaving like sensible, mature neighbours (much as Spain could do with Gibraltar).

Apparently, they refused our offer to negotiate over oil-rights etc - and turned down the offer of being included in the refining process, etc.

Conclusion - I don't think we can enter any negotiations with them about sovereignty, until they prove themselves more faithful, and start making positive overtures instead of threats.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

eurotop40

Admired Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Posts
4,430
Media
0
Likes
977
Points
333
Location
Zurich (Switzerland)
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Personally, I don't have an opinion on this whole dispute.

It is obvious, that if some desert islands are populated purely by colonizers, these will probably prefer to stick with their land of origin. So self-determination is a sort of joke.

On the other hand we have seen that in countries like Latvia, the Soviets moved in so many Russians, that the autochthonous population risked to become the minority. Here self-determination would be a fraud.

The only thing I see clearly is that Mr. Cameron should not accuse Argentina of being colonialist because:
1. it is shameless to be said by an Englishman, England being per definition the colonial power of the late couple of centuries
2. if the UK people believed this statement they would show a lack of intelligence and knowledge.
 

gymfresh

Expert Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jan 8, 2008
Posts
1,633
Media
20
Likes
154
Points
383
Location
Rodinia
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Don't care to join the fray, other than to say as an Argentine citizen and a Spanish citizen -- and as a lawyer and a student of history -- it's rather clear to me that Great Britain converted (in the legal sense) both the Malvinas Islands and Gibraltar to her own use and defends staying on the flimsy "occupiers, keepers" defense. The criminal version of conversion is known as theft.
 

vince

Legendary Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Posts
8,271
Media
1
Likes
1,674
Points
333
Location
Canada
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
France is the closest landmass to GB. And they once occupied it... hmmm
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
The Falklands were empty before the Europeans arrived - no indigenous populations. The present population is entirely of British descent and has been a British territory for a couple of centuries. The issue is subject to a UN resolution - in a nutshell that the UK and Argentina should agree the right of self determination of the Falklanders and give them a referendum. The UK is happy to do this.

The usual decolonisation option would be that a territory becomes an independent state. However a territory with a population as small as the Falklands would have trouble providing services including health, education and defence. In such cases the UN recognises the special relationship with the mother country. Providing services from Argentina is hampered by distance - hundreds of miles - and by cultural and language difficulties. Services from the UK have even more distance but one culture.

Unfortunately Argentina has created a national myth out of the Falklands. To Argentina it is a matter of national pride that these islands are somehow "theirs". I think the UK has to ignore the rhetoric and hope for a change of government.

One option for the UK - with agreement of the Falklanders - is to remove their British Overseas Territory status and incorporate them within a UK county. County incorporation has been done for some other islands (eg St Kilda was in Inverness-shire, now in Western Isles; Scilly Islands have been made part of Cornwall) and there is no theoretic limit on the miles of sea. I suppose it would be Cornwall as the county closest to the Falklands. This would mean that the Falklands would be directly represented by an MP and directly subject to English law, ie they would cease to be a Territory and become part of UK, England, Cornwall, in theory even part of a civil parish. The Dutch have done something similar with some of their overseas island territories.

I guess an outcome of the Argentinian sabre rattling is that it will put the Falklands top of the list for a solution. Supplying the Falklands direct from Britain (via Ascension Island) is possible, just inconvenient.
 
7

798686

Guest
The only thing I see clearly is that Mr. Cameron should not accuse Argentina of being colonialist because:
1. it is shameless to be said by an Englishman, England being per definition the colonial power of the late couple of centuries
2. if the UK people believed this statement they would show a lack of intelligence and knowledge.
We haven't. That's just what they accuse us of. :)

Unfortunately Argentina has created a national myth out of the Falklands. To Argentina it is a matter of national pride that these islands are somehow "theirs". I think the UK has to ignore the rhetoric and hope for a change of government.

I guess an outcome of the Argentinian sabre rattling is that it will put the Falklands top of the list for a solution.
I agree. But I think the way Kirchner has handled this has made it impossible for the UK to go for a solution that would be favourable to Argentina. All it's done is ensure we have no choice but to increase military presence there, which is not something we particularly wanted to do.

I guess the ideal solution would be an agreement of joint oil-exploration, and also increased Argentine involvement in the islands some way down the line, dependent on their co-operation, a benign stance and a reversal of recent rhetoric.
 
S

superbot

Guest
Why do the Argentines persist in their bogus claim on the Falkands based on such spurious reasons?...The Argentine Presidents third world rhetoric is basically a 'croc of shit'...Decrying the British for it's colonial claims on the islands, whilst basing her own claims not on ARGENTINAS ownership,but on their former colonial masters SPAIN.
The Prime Minister has succintly,I believe, dealt with the matter and quite rightly has summed it up based on the notion of self determination...so really that should be an end to the matter.The islands are recognized by the international community and the premise of self determination is enshrined in the UN charter and as Argentina didn't even exist when the islands were settled by the British WHERE DOES THEIR CLAIM COME FROM??.... Frankly I think all that botox has gone to her backside!!!
 
7

798686

Guest
Now - if it had been Evita, I suspect she may have done a hearts and minds tour round the UK, promised new bilateral trade agreements between the two countries (and separate ones with the Falklands) and a new spirit of friendship and co-operation, then perhaps we might be getting somewhere. :) A balcony appearance in Stanley might not go amiss either. ;)

Honestly tho - the sabre-rattling just pisses everyone off, and ensures they make no progress whatsoever. :[
 

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Honestly tho - the sabre-rattling just pisses everyone off, and ensures they make no progress whatsoever. :[

It is beyond sense. Argentina was set to benefit from the possible Falkland oil bonanza. They would have been supplying the Falklands, possibly refining oil, possibly the beneficiary of cheap oil.

Now we're looking at enhanced UK military presence in the Falklands (long term) plus potentially supplying the Falklands from the UK direct (both expensive). We're looking at oil being refined in the Falklands and being transported by ship long distance, quite possibly to North America. If the oil really is there then the costs can all be managed. After a war 30 years ago and the present tensions I don't think the UK is likely to trust Argentina - and the Falklands certainly don't.
 
1

185248

Guest
It's amazing the lengths politicians on both sides will go to take the public focus off their governments economic failings.
 

The Dragon

Sexy Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2007
Posts
5,767
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
193
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
It is beyond sense. Argentina was set to benefit from the possible Falkland oil bonanza. They would have been supplying the Falklands, possibly refining oil, possibly the beneficiary of cheap oil.

Now we're looking at enhanced UK military presence in the Falklands (long term) plus potentially supplying the Falklands from the UK direct (both expensive). We're looking at oil being refined in the Falklands and being transported by ship long distance, quite possibly to North America. If the oil really is there then the costs can all be managed. After a war 30 years ago and the present tensions I don't think the UK is likely to trust Argentina - and the Falklands certainly don't.


If there weren't any oil reserves there wouldn't be an issue.

You don't see wars being waged over grubby little shitholes that don't have any mineral wealth.
 
S

superbot

Guest
It's amazing the lengths politicians on both sides will go to take the public focus off their governments economic failings.
David Cameron hasn't been milking this issue in the least.In fact,all he seems to have done is to respond to the inevitable rubbish pushed out by the Argentine president,which he has dealt with in a few sentences.Quite rightly he has abstained from making this an issue, on what is the 30th anniversary of the conflict,a time to remember the dead.