Only digging :)

Of history:

The Life of Reason, Vol.1, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana

But while what their Lordships say regarding our inability to repeat the 1982 campaign is true they are also at risk of doing what the Generals have long been accused of which it is preparing to fight the last war.

I'll counter that with the view of history as offered by Ford

"History is more or less bunk. It's tradition. We don't want tradition. We want to live in the present, and the only history that is worth a tinker's damn is the history that we make today."

I think the quote about history was probably addressing people manipulating history and abusing it to support a false position. Trying to it incorrectly to support a claim such as Argentina's to the Falklands.

Just my thought.

I've posted a legal determination on the FI before, but can't find it. but here's the Time line - not from Wikipedia but from the rather more authoratiative Malcolm Shaw 'International law' 5 edn 2003 pp 452-453:

1592: Discovered uninhabited by English Sea Captain (successor state United Kingdon of Great Britain & Northern Ireland).
1764: Kingdom of France estatblished a settlement on East Falkland (sucessor state Republic of France).
1765: 'Britain' established settlement on West Falkland.
1767: France sold their settlement to the Kingdom of Spain
1770: British settlement conquered by Spain.
1771: Settlement return to English (UK) control.
1774: Settlement abandoned on economic grounds but left plaque asserting sovereignty.
1811: Spaniards left.
1816: United Provinces of River Plate (sucessor state Argentina) declared independence from Spain.
1820: Argentina took 'formal possession' of the Falkland Islands.
1829: Britain protested to Argentina.
1831: US warship evicted Aregentinian settlers (in response to treatment of US citizens elsewhere).
1833: Britain recaptured the islands.
1982: Argentiana retook the islands and evicted 8 weeks later.
1982: UNSCR 502 called for immediate withdrawal of Argentine Forces and sought to restore status quo ante, based on the principle of the 'inherent Right of Self Defence', even if the 'possession of the Terrirtory is subject to controversy'.

The conquest formed the original basis of the title, irrespective of the British employment of other principles (eg 1930s prescription as the basis of the title, rather than conquest and annexation; principle of self-determination 1980s et seq. This, coupled with the widespread recognition by the IC, including the UNSCR, of the status of the territory as a British Overseas Terriroty, resolves the issue.

CM, of course you are right, it was just a gentle ribbing.

My real target was their lordships bleating about their battleships. We haven't got them; we won't get them for 10 years if that; the threat is now.

All their lordships are really saying is I told you so except of course the world has moved on. As a whole the UK Armed Forces are, as MJF
said, immeasurably stronger than in 1982, the Argentinian Forces are quantitively reduced from 1982.

It's a different ball game. Maybe in 20 years time we shall need the carriers and maybe in the next 10 years it will be proven that we were wrong to retire the Harriers but it is all financially driven risk.

I found the following (and slightly amusing) extract in Harris's thrilling read 'Cases and Materials on International Law'5 Edn 1998 p 214:

Would not the simplest solution be, to grant the Falkland Islands independence (if the Islanders' agree) therefore allowing them to become a Sovereign State in their own right.

With membership of the Commonwealth (with suitable British Passport rights) and the UN thrown in, would that not stymie any Argentinian rhetoric?

Just a thought.

Here's a novel thought: If Argentina can't look after a few islands which, as they keep re-iterating, are only a few miles off their shore, and are half a world away from the UK, why should the welfare of said islands be left to them?

Honestly, you would think national pride was a crime.

Ahh, yes. That seems an elegant solution...however, for a 'unit' to be regarded as a State under international law it must conform with the legal conditions as to settled population, a definable area of land and the capacity to enter into legal relations. Other theories include the ability to defend oneself, economic viability and that there are no antecedent disputes regarding sovereignity, sucession and 'title'.

If the FI was granted independence, it could enter into a Defence Treaty with the UK, for example, and rely on a degree of political and diplomatic support from the UK and the wider Commonwealth. However, there would be a considerble bloc of nations who would refuse to recognise the Falkland Islands as an independent state - both as a result of legal objections and political grandstanding. Kosovo, similarly, is not recognised by a lot of States for a myriad of reasons, and the Latin American bloc of nations would probably view an 'independent' FI in the way the West regarded the Soviet Republics of Lithuanian, Latvia and Estonia - independent only in name and utterly reliant on the parent state.

As you can see it's a quiet day in the office and my advice is pro bono...

Is the lovely Cristina trying to lose friends.

Argentina Plots Next Moves in Bid to Control YPF - ABC News

I see Barack put his foot in his mouth trying to be neutral.
Barack Obama makes Falklands gaffe by calling Malvinas the Maldives - Telegraph


And the Argie President got all up tight and left early.

But Mrs Kirchner left the summit – attended by North, South and Central American nations – earlier than expected last night as Colombian press reported she was unhappy that a declaration of support for the Argentine claim to the British-controlled territory was not included in the summit's final document, which went unsigned after the USA and Canada used their vetoes.

"Mrs Kirchner also reprimanded Juan Manuel Santos, the Colombian president, for failing to mention the islands in his speech."

At the moment, De Kirschner is making a bit of a fool of herself. She's behaved in a petulant and loud manner, by trying to get other countries to back her sabre rattling she's come unstuck and quite publicly. By complaining like this she's making herself look all the more noisy, unreasonable and shallow.:ok:

FB:)

It seems that way.

It will be interesting to see how other media outlets portray the same stories.

It seems she really is getting up people's noses.

This action might cost Argentina a hell of a lot more in the long run as no one will invest if they are not secured.

Argentina angers Madrid with plans to seize control of YPFSpain has denounced Argentina's "hostile" plans to seize control of its largest oil company, in a move Spain's foreign minister said had "broken the climate of friendship" between the two countries.


Argentina angers Madrid with plans to seize control of YPF - Telegraph

Whilst initially gaining support for her attempts to isolate the British position on the Falklands, De Kirschner is now rather rapidly burning all her bridges.

Her neighbours are increasingly alarmed at her sociopathic application of foreign policy; her increasingly left-wing position; and now she his managed to uniformly peeve off arguably their closest ally, Spain.

Keep up the good work, Ma'am.

:}

Pardon? What? An echo?

What? An echo?

Echo?

Sod Spain.. I think we should side with argentina over this economic spanish colonialism !! maybe put a big poster on the rock showing our support

Langlebaston
 

Quote

The pen has ALWAYS been mightier than the sword


like the pen that wrote Neville Chamberlain's scrap of paper at Munich in 1938?

Don't offend our intelligence!

Chamberlain has always been an easy target for those who don't understand him, he went through the carnage of WW1 and had a deep desire to avoid another bloodbath, when it was clear that diplomacy was not going to work with Hitler he bought time with the piece of paper and presided over the biggest increase of defense spending in the history of the UK.

One quick look at the types in front line service with the RAF in 1938 will tell you that the UK was in no position to defend its self in 1938 and only in 1940 was the RAF able to field enough modern aircraft to defend the UK.

Winston Chuchill may have taken the credit for his leadership during WW2 but without the foundations of defense that Chamberlian layed Churchill would have had few weponds to fight with.

I'll back that up. Prior to me, all the Pitbulls were builders, and in the 30's we ran one of the largest civil engineering companies in the country. It was a family run business and as a result even as a young man my father was given immense responsibilities in overseeing the various projects that were underway. We were building military bases and in particular airfields all over the south west.

I once spoke to my father about Chamberlain and the charge of appeasement. Dad was adamant that everyone in positions of importance understood that Chamberlain bought us time to prepare and knew exactly what he was doing as well as what the likely consequences for his own reputation would be.

pb