Falklands anyone?
OK, CAW. History reume once again.
1764 French established Port Louis
1766 British established Port Egmont, France surrendered their claim to Spain
1770s squabbles between France, Britain and Spain about their various claims
1881 Spain quits the Falkland Islands
1886 Argentina claims all of Spain's former territories in the South Atlantic. On what basis?
1829 Argentina grant settlement rights to a German, even though Argentina have no rights to the island and have, thus far never settled them.
1831 USA kick him out and declare the "government" invalid
1832 Argentina continues to try to hold the islands, but is defeted by a mutiny; not an external force.
1833 Britain re-establish control of the islands.
But all of that is irrelevant, CAW. Since then, settlers have made The Falkland Islands their home. Many generations. Ask them who they wish to belong to. Or just invade by force again.
I admire your balls for stating your case in public, but it's a pathetic claim, well past its sell-by date. How about handing South America back to the nations that Spain conquered?
1764 French established Port Louis
1766 British established Port Egmont, France surrendered their claim to Spain
1770s squabbles between France, Britain and Spain about their various claims
1881 Spain quits the Falkland Islands
1886 Argentina claims all of Spain's former territories in the South Atlantic. On what basis?
1829 Argentina grant settlement rights to a German, even though Argentina have no rights to the island and have, thus far never settled them.
1831 USA kick him out and declare the "government" invalid
1832 Argentina continues to try to hold the islands, but is defeted by a mutiny; not an external force.
1833 Britain re-establish control of the islands.
But all of that is irrelevant, CAW. Since then, settlers have made The Falkland Islands their home. Many generations. Ask them who they wish to belong to. Or just invade by force again.
I admire your balls for stating your case in public, but it's a pathetic claim, well past its sell-by date. How about handing South America back to the nations that Spain conquered?
Courtney, are you aware of the Nootka Sound Convention (UK - Spain 1790)?
The sixth article of the convention states:
Or, for a different opinion, read this column in The Telegraph: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/expat/t...the-falklands/
Is a complex matter, after all.
Happy Easter to all.
The sixth article of the convention states:
It is further agreed with respect to the eastern and western coasts of South America and the islands adjacent, that the respective subjects shall not form in the future any establishment on the parts of the coast situated to the south of the parts of the same coast and of the islands adjacent already occupied by Spain; it being understood that the said respective subjects shall retain the liberty of landing on the coasts and islands so situated for objects connected with their fishery and of erecting thereon huts and other temporary structures serving only those objects.
Look at the opinion of some (past) british leaders about the islands:- Duke of Wellington, Prime Minister (1834): "I have reviewed all the papers relating to the Falklands. Is unclear that we've ever been holders of the sovereignty of these islands."
- Sidney Spicer, head of the Americas Department at the Foreign Office in 1910 "... the Argentine government's attitude is not entirely unjustified and our action has been somewhat despotic"
- R. Campbell, assistant secretary of the Foreign Office (1911): "Who had the best right while we are attaching the islands. I think the government of Buenos Aires [...] We can not easily make a good claim and we have done a wisely effort to avoid discussing the issue in Argentina. "
- Sir Malcolm A.Robertson, the British ambassador in Buenos Aires in 1928 "Argentine claims to the Falkland Islands in any way are unfounded" and insisted in another document that "English case is not strong enough to face a public controversy."
- George Fitzmaurice, counsel to the British Foreign Office in 1936: "Our case has a certain fragility" and advised it finally came: "Sitting on the islands hard to avoid discussing, in a policy to drop the case."
- John Troutbeck, a senior British Foreign Office in 1936: "... our taking of the Falkland Islands in 1833 [...] was so arbitrary that it is not so easy to explain our position without showing us themselves as international outlaws. "
Or, for a different opinion, read this column in The Telegraph: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/expat/t...the-falklands/
Is a complex matter, after all.
Happy Easter to all.
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: NC, USA
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And this is 2015 when the current wishes of the people seems to have overridden statements made by people a hundred or more years ago in most of the world. So how about if someone actually asks the Falkland Islanders what they would wish to be?
Oh that's right that actually happened. And three of them don't want to be British. Seems Argentina has a case
Oh that's right that actually happened. And three of them don't want to be British. Seems Argentina has a case
The problem is not what the islanders want or want not. The islanders can and surely would remain british citizens, their way of living and government would be respected, their tax policy should and could have a special status, no mandatory educational or religious imposition would be put upon them... simply because they are not the issue.
The Argentine economy has been rocky for many years and its politics are complicated and divisive - I have relatives (Argentine nationals) who moved out of Argentina because the country is so unstable.
All the Falklands mean to Argentina is money and the saving of face (that is where the Latin mentality has its flaw).
I believe there is an island in the River Plate that used to belong to Uruguay until Argentina bullied them out of it in exchange for a less important one further up the river - perhaps they could give that back before demanding the return of the Falklands.
It seems the UK didn't pay much heed to the wishes of the former inhabitants of Diego Garcia. One does get the impression that the UK government does make stuff up as it goes along. If it is about the oil and gas, why not just say so?
If it is about the oil and gas, why not just say so?
Although, to be honest, it had been predicted.
Regards, Den.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And then there is the small matter of those who live there, were born there or know no other home than the Falklands/Malvinas. It is unlawful to make people stateless and the Kirchner administration's rhetoric, coupled with the actions of a previous Argentinian administration does not leave much to the imagination about the likely treatment of the Falkland Islanders under Argentinian rule.
The Falkland Islands Government has established self sufficiency for everything except defence and the Kirchner administration is doing all it can to destabilise that. In normal circumstances, that would be that - in time a more reasonable Argentinian Government would emerge and co-opertion could continue.
Unfortunately, we are in the midst of some quite extraordinary change - and change that Russia is playing a major hand in bringing about. Russian defence doctrine uses the stoking of of tensions as a means of warfare and I believe we will be seeing much more 'encouragement' being passed Argentina's way courtesy Mr Putin.
On the positive side - makes the case for some serious re-equipping much stronger - and with some of the new equipment on the horizon and better interoperability we may yet end up with something quite credible.
Gentleman Aviator
their way of living and government would be respected,
)How is that "respecting their way of living" .......
And is not "their way of government" err ...... as a British Overseas Territory under HMQ (Gawd Bless 'Er!)
Re the replies to Ozy: I do not think his posting is 'Bad taste' or 'Tacky' at all.
If CFK will lay off perhaps we will consider doing so; until then, suck it up, lady.
In the nineties, I was detached to BA flying with Argentinian CC and a very agreeable group of ladies and gentlemen they were. Pity about their leader.
If CFK will lay off perhaps we will consider doing so; until then, suck it up, lady.
In the nineties, I was detached to BA flying with Argentinian CC and a very agreeable group of ladies and gentlemen they were. Pity about their leader.
CAW, Marcantilan,
You are just dragging up the same old crap once again. For me the bottom lines are these two simple points.
The folk that live there (and have done for generations) don't want you on your land. You don't have a great record on respecting their wishes and I doubt that will change - otherwise you wouldn't block ships heading to or from The Falklands. Right?
You have already proved that you have insufficient reasoned argument for your claim on The Falklands. Otherwise, why would you resort to starting a War (33 years ago) that cost hundreds of lives?
And here's a bonus for you. The Falkland Islands are British by the democratic will of all but three of the locals. And Britain will defend that right.
Happy Easter.
You are just dragging up the same old crap once again. For me the bottom lines are these two simple points.
The folk that live there (and have done for generations) don't want you on your land. You don't have a great record on respecting their wishes and I doubt that will change - otherwise you wouldn't block ships heading to or from The Falklands. Right?
You have already proved that you have insufficient reasoned argument for your claim on The Falklands. Otherwise, why would you resort to starting a War (33 years ago) that cost hundreds of lives?
And here's a bonus for you. The Falkland Islands are British by the democratic will of all but three of the locals. And Britain will defend that right.
Happy Easter.
Courtney,
First of all, I was six in 1982 and, surely, I didnīt start any war. Or, at least, I donīt remember starting any.
Anyway, I keep posting my "crap". The UN considers paramount the "interests", not the "wishes" of the islanders (UN Resolution 2065).
In any case, "insufficient reasoned argument" was not the case. Or all Latin America, 54 African countries (Argentina celebrates Africa?s 54 countries support for Malvinas sovereignty ? MercoPress), China, Russia and others were totally wrong?
Happy Easter!
First of all, I was six in 1982 and, surely, I didnīt start any war. Or, at least, I donīt remember starting any.
Anyway, I keep posting my "crap". The UN considers paramount the "interests", not the "wishes" of the islanders (UN Resolution 2065).
In any case, "insufficient reasoned argument" was not the case. Or all Latin America, 54 African countries (Argentina celebrates Africa?s 54 countries support for Malvinas sovereignty ? MercoPress), China, Russia and others were totally wrong?
Happy Easter!
UN Charter
Article 1
2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
Article 1
2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
Or all Latin America, 54 African countries (Argentina celebrates Africa?s 54 countries support for Malvinas sovereignty ? MercoPress), China, Russia and others were totally wrong?
In my brief time in the Upland Goose, Argentina was mentioned once by an Islander, in a sentence where the other words were "can f#ck right off"
Anyway, I keep posting my "crap". The UN considers paramount the "interests", not the "wishes" of the islanders (UN Resolution 2065).
In any case, "insufficient reasoned argument" was not the case. Or all Latin America, 54 African countries (Argentina celebrates Africa?s 54 countries support for Malvinas sovereignty ? MercoPress), China, Russia and others were totally wrong?
In any case, "insufficient reasoned argument" was not the case. Or all Latin America, 54 African countries (Argentina celebrates Africa?s 54 countries support for Malvinas sovereignty ? MercoPress), China, Russia and others were totally wrong?
Mentioning that lot is like calling Gary Glitter as a character witness for the defence in a rape case.
We all know the UN has no use whatsoever beyond feeding and immunising poor kids in the 3rd world. Resolutions calling for peace and self-determination for nations did nothing for Tibet, Taiwan...Iraq (!)
Yep, thatīs ok. The world is wrong, the UK is right. The UN is wrong also, or useless. I forgot Hillary Clinton, she is wrong too.
But you could re read what I posted supra...or the Duke of Wellington was a bad example for kids too?
In my opinion, it is a complex matter, just showing a F3 pic (and Thypoons were now down south...), a couple of insults and so on is a sign that the problem is not really understood.
And no, I donīt support Galtieri and neither the current Argentine government.
But you could re read what I posted supra...or the Duke of Wellington was a bad example for kids too?
In my opinion, it is a complex matter, just showing a F3 pic (and Thypoons were now down south...), a couple of insults and so on is a sign that the problem is not really understood.
And no, I donīt support Galtieri and neither the current Argentine government.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are fundamental problems with a few issues.
When we say, we have "x" amount of countries supporting this cause, what does it mean? Well it doesn't mean anything in particular, as it has been shown, most countries will support whatever they think is in their self interest. It has nothing to do with right or wrong. There are a multitude of issues in the world which demonstrate that phenomena.
The UN supports whats best for the people, not the peoples wishes?Now there's a recipe for disaster. Who the F#$k made them god, and decided they know whats best for the people. I certainly wouldn't want that mob of muppet's having to decide whats best for me. Using that logic they would have decided that Ukraine should be a sovereign part of Russia.
When we say, we have "x" amount of countries supporting this cause, what does it mean? Well it doesn't mean anything in particular, as it has been shown, most countries will support whatever they think is in their self interest. It has nothing to do with right or wrong. There are a multitude of issues in the world which demonstrate that phenomena.
The UN supports whats best for the people, not the peoples wishes?
Now there's a recipe for disaster. Who the F#$k made them god, and decided they know whats best for the people. I certainly wouldn't want that mob of muppet's having to decide whats best for me. Using that logic they would have decided that Ukraine should be a sovereign part of Russia.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Argentina
Age: 49
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are fundamental problems with a few issues.
Who the F#$k made them god, and decided they know whats best for the people.
Who the F#$k made them god, and decided they know whats best for the people.
I certainly wouldn't want that mob of muppet's having to decide whats best for me. Using that logic they would have decided that Ukraine should be a sovereign part of Russia.
Double standar, my friend: when it comes your way UNīs always gonna be fine. When it asks you to re-start conversations over some way away south atlantic islands theyīre just a mob of puppets, decided to support a dictatorship that ended 32 years ago...
Just to get back to normal, grown ups conversation, ever heard of the Aland Island Case?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAW
Perhaps a reasonable start to adult dialogue would be a fulsome and heartfelt apology from Argentina, in respect of the 1982 invasion? Instead of as currently, passing that action off with the zeal of a crusade, complete with the numerous public politico-military rallies led by CFK and her honchos?
That's despite the ill-advised episode causing the loss of almost one thousand young men's lives, the overwhelming majority of whom would have preferred not to be there. If these regular "road show" Argentine gatherings are really to mark the memories of those who fell, then perhaps subdued acts of solemn respect and remembrance would be much more appropriate.
If on the other hand, the fact that 33 years has passed now makes it too late for such an apology, isn't it also too late for Argentina to attempt turning the clock back almost 200 - one hundred & eighty two to be precise - years? Is it not yet time to just move on, live and let live?
The Falkland Islanders have never presented any threat whatsoever to Argentina, they're quite happy to simply jog along exactly as they are.
Just to get back to normal, grown ups conversation
That's despite the ill-advised episode causing the loss of almost one thousand young men's lives, the overwhelming majority of whom would have preferred not to be there. If these regular "road show" Argentine gatherings are really to mark the memories of those who fell, then perhaps subdued acts of solemn respect and remembrance would be much more appropriate.
If on the other hand, the fact that 33 years has passed now makes it too late for such an apology, isn't it also too late for Argentina to attempt turning the clock back almost 200 - one hundred & eighty two to be precise - years? Is it not yet time to just move on, live and let live?
The Falkland Islanders have never presented any threat whatsoever to Argentina, they're quite happy to simply jog along exactly as they are.