The Falklands Islands

[Rollo]

Margaet Thatcher sent her military to the Malvinas to protect 1200 people who suddenly found themselves occupied by the rightful owners of the islands. Argentina.

Aren't the rightful owners of the islands the people who actually live there? Shouldn't they have to right to self-determination? If they have already voted by referendum to remain British, then what possible claim does Argentina have?

At the time of the Falklands War, Argentina itself was being run by a military junta, and as a result of the war it led to the government being discredited and being replaced by free election in 1983.

http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/country-profile/south-america/falkland-islands?profile=history&pg=3
The Argentine Government has argued that the Falkland Islanders do not enjoy the right of self-determination, on the (false) basis that they replaced an indigenous Argentine population expelled by force. However there was no indigenous or settled population on the Islands until British settlement.

The people who live in the Falklands now are not a transitory population. Many can trace their origins in the Islands back to the early 19th century. Britain is committed to defend their right to choose their own future.

The Falklands themselves are a self-governing Territory. They have their own Governor and Legislative Assembly. For all intents and purposes save for the military they are autonomous.

So then, where does your theory lie and on what possible basis?

[BDunnell]

The Argentine claim on the islands is a rather sad one, in my opinion. Most civilised countries have given up on territorial claims against others; after all, the majority of democratic nations could make claims against the territory of other countries with as much legitimacy as that of the Argentine claim on the Falklands, but they don't.

[glauistean]

Aren't the rightful owners of the islands the people who actually live there? Shouldn't they have to right to self-determination? If they have already voted by referendum to remain British, then what possible claim does Argentina have?

At the time of the Falklands War, Argentina itself was being run by a military junta, and as a result of the war it led to the government being discredited and being replaced by free election in 1983.

http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/country-profile/south-america/falkland-islands?profile=history&pg=3
The Argentine Government has argued that the Falkland Islanders do not enjoy the right of self-determination, on the (false) basis that they replaced an indigenous Argentine population expelled by force. However there was no indigenous or settled population on the Islands until British settlement.

The people who live in the Falklands now are not a transitory population. Many can trace their origins in the Islands back to the early 19th century. Britain is committed to defend their right to choose their own future.

The Falklands themselves are a self-governing Territory. They have their own Governor and Legislative Assembly. For all intents and purposes save for the military they are autonomous.

So then, where does your theory lie and on what possible basis?

There was evfidence of indigenous people living in thee Falklands/Malvinas long before any country settled people there.

That the Latin Americans unanimously back Argentina in the dispute over the Malvinas is no wonder. For all that the islands were uninhabited by indigenous people when the Europeans- in turns French, British and Spanish- occupied, abandoned, re-took and fought over them during the period of European colonial expansion (though discovered artefacts prove that they had been visited by people from the South American mainland before the Europeans arrived); they are South American islands, not European Islands. When, after1776, the Malvinas were ruled by the Spanish, they were not ruled directly from Spain as a separate entity- they were administered from Buenos Aires as part of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata. After it won its independence from Spain, the nascent Argentinian state asserted that the Malvinas were part of its territory and established a settlement there; but Britain sent a naval expedition, which seized the islands from the Buenos Aires government in 1833.
Might was right in those days- and to a large extent this is still considered to be the case; the fact that the current inhabitants of the Falklands are descendants of British, rather than Latin American settlers, and therefore assert their 'Britishness', is owed entirely to that invasion of 177 years ago, and the subsequent maintennance of British control by the relatively superior military prowess of the UK; allied to Britain's superior status within the international community, represented by its position as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Malvinas or Falkland Islanders only "consider" themselves British. They are not. If they actually did become Britsh subjects through the Malvina becoming part of GB then that would be done through a vote. Since we are talking about an island that is 6,000 miles from the UK and geographically attached to Argentina (not literally) it does not make sense. If the vote went through and The Falklands became part of GB then the people of course would be subjects. If Britain , through elections decided the opposite then the people would be Ex-Pats.

Latin America wants the island returned to Argentina and the weight of those countries is significant these days.

Case in point, the issue is this very week being spoken of at the UN Security Council. Brazil has already taken a stance and a srong one. President DaSilva(sic) has already rebuked the UK.

[BDunnell]

You inadvertently make my point very well. We are talking about things that happened 177 years or more ago here. Surely Argentina can do better than seek pride in avenging something that occurred nearly two centuries ago, or are other achievements in the intervening period that lacking?

[Roamy]

the falkland islands have a population of 3500 - move them to argentina and use the island for nuclear waste storage

end of story

[Rollo]

the fact that the current inhabitants of the Falklands are descendants of British, rather than Latin American settlers, and therefore assert their 'Britishness', is owed entirely to that invasion of 177 years ago

Under Argentine Law the rule of Villa Miseria which is otherwise known as "squatter's rights" in the UK, forces a change in possession even under hostile circumstances after 60 years.

177 years is longer than 60 years ergo even under Argentine Law the territory should have passed hands.
In 1833 the islands were uninhabited, so if you want to argue that claim, the laws of Terra Nullius should apply.

Legally under both British Law and Argentine Law your claim is still spurious.

[Captain VXR]

The Argentine claim on the islands is a rather sad one, in my opinion. Most civilised countries have given up on territorial claims against others; after all, the majority of democratic nations could make claims against the territory of other countries with as much legitimacy as that of the Argentine claim on the Falklands, but they don't.

For example, Germany had the sense to give up their claim on Gdansk :)

[donKey jote]

And Spain on Gibraltar :erm: :laugh:

[Ghostwalker]

and Sweden on Åland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%85land_crisis).

[ioan]

There was evfidence of indigenous people living in thee Falklands/Malvinas long before any country settled people there.


So what?!
Are they a majority? Didn't they have the same democratic, if you know what I mean, right to self determination when like all the other inhabitants?

And since when did indigenous populations claim the rights to Falkland Islands and not the Spanish speaking colonist descendants?!

You are making unfounded claims based on dreamed up crap that does not hold any weight if the population itself decided in a democratic way, you know 50% +1 resut of a referendum, that they do not want to be part of Argentina!


...the fact that the current inhabitants of the Falklands are descendants of British, rather than Latin American settlers, and therefore assert their 'Britishness', is owed entirely to that invasion of 177 years ago,...

Did you find a way to turn back time? I guess not, so what exactly do you want to do, force British people to live in Argentina?!

Question to myself: when will common sense finally rule this stupid world?!

[Sonic]

So what?!

Question to myself: when will common sense finally rule this stupid world?!

When you are elected "supreme overlord" ;)

[ioan]

When you are elected "supreme overlord" ;)

Then there is still a chance! :p

[glauistean]

[quote=ioan]So what?!
Are they a majority? Didn't they have the same democratic, if you know what I mean, right to self determination when like all the other inhabitants?


As it stands ownership is being contested. It as a matter of fact is a territory.


And since when did indigenous populations claim the rights to Falkland Islands and not the Spanish speaking colonist descendants?!


I'm loathe to say this, but, as a seemingly bright individual you are asking about legal claims from indigenous peoples that were living hundreds of years ago. The point is that it has been refuted that the Europeans landed their first. Hence the necessity to indicate that fact.

You are making unfounded claims based on dreamed up crap that does not hold any weight if the population itself decided in a democratic way, you know 50% +1 resut of a referendum, that they do not want to be part of Argentina!


I have stated noting that is unfounded nor have I stated anything that is "crap". You are better than to allow yourself to fall into the crass world of the illiterate. I want you to name the facts that are incorrect in your opinion.





Did you find a way to turn back time? I guess not, so what exactly do you want to do, force British people to live in Argentina?!

Question to myself: when will common sense finally rule this stupid world?!
[/quote:32o7psts]

Quite right you should question yourself. You are not on the pinnacle of intellectual discourse about this topic by refuting claims as crap with nothing to base it on. You mention elections?
They mean nothing since the Malvina's/Falklands are but a territory. Like The Isle of Man, The Jersey Islands, Guernsey included. Only that they form their own government.

My question to you ioan is , and if you have read what I posted and if you know anything about the Malvina's/Falklands is the fact you mention common sense. What do you find logical as you express it in your last piece of your diatribe where common sense will prevail in this world or "stupid world"? Well it's made up of stupid people since people make up the world as we know it. So for intelligence sake, is it logical to argue that a country hold dominion over islands 8,000 miles away over a country that is 200 miles approximately from their course. People that are educated and first world.

iona, you have heard of Diego Garcia? Well, it is inhabited bythe USAF. Why? Strategic for launching attacks. What about the people that lived there? Kicked off and never allowed to return because they would englander national security. "Your type of same world? Or as long as I'm not affected" ? So, the west takes away the land of people who have lived there since time immemorial and they can justify it like they did the Bikini Island by blowing them to kingdom come all for the sake of what and at the expense of whom.

[BDunnell]

Quite right you should question yourself. You are not on the pinnacle of intellectual discourse about this topic by refuting claims as crap with nothing to base it on. You mention elections?
They mean nothing since the Malvina's/Falklands are but a territory. Like The Isle of Man, The Jersey Islands, Guernsey included. Only that they form their own government.

My question to you ioan is , and if you have read what I posted and if you know anything about the Malvina's/Falklands is the fact you mention common sense. What do you find logical as you express it in your last piece of your diatribe where common sense will prevail in this world or "stupid world"? Well it's made up of stupid people since people make up the world as we know it. So for intelligence sake, is it logical to argue that a country hold dominion over islands 8,000 miles away over a country that is 200 miles approximately from their course. People that are educated and first world.

iona, you have heard of Diego Garcia? Well, it is inhabited bythe USAF. Why? Strategic for launching attacks. What about the people that lived there? Kicked off and never allowed to return because they would englander national security. "Your type of same world? Or as long as I'm not affected" ? So, the west takes away the land of people who have lived there since time immemorial and they can justify it like they did the Bikini Island by blowing them to kingdom come all for the sake of what and at the expense of whom.

It is, if I may say so, very simplistic to assume that ioan or indeed any of the rest of us who believe the Argentine claim on the Falklands to be nonsensical therefore believe what happened to the people of Diego Garcia to somehow be acceptable. I certainly don't. I think it was an appalling act. Turning this into some kind of 'the West against the rest' argument is utterly meaningless.

[Rollo]

So for intelligence sake, is it logical to argue that a country hold dominion over islands 8,000 miles away over a country that is 200 miles approximately from their course. People that are educated and first world.


Absolutely.
A landlord doesn't actually have to live in the building that they own; nor do they have to live next door or even in the same country.

[glauistean]

Absolutely.
A landlord doesn't actually have to live in the building that they own; nor do they have to live next door or even in the same country.

The only reason there is any interest in the Falkland Islands/Malvinas is the fact that there is a high probababilty of oil north of the islands.

Would the the GB government allow Argentina to stay if they stated a claim over the Isle of Man? Let's say Spain. Would that be allowed? Remember, a territory and not a member. Key to this discussion.

[glauistean]

It is, if I may say so, very simplistic to assume that ioan or indeed any of the rest of us who believe the Argentine claim on the Falklands to be nonsensical therefore believe what happened to the people of Diego Garcia to somehow be acceptable. I certainly don't. I think it was an appalling act. Turning this into some kind of 'the West against the rest' argument is utterly meaningless.

BDunnel, that you state an argument based upon an occurrence worse than what happened in the Falklands/Malvina's as "nonsensical" and "meaningless" and turning this into a "west against the rest" is I have to say deficient and uninformed and arrogant.
Since GB left the Falklands/Malvina's and then returned when they realized that the Argentines had returned there and used the might of the Empire, bullying to get their way", you seem to have forgotten that and instead of a cogent argument you resort to name calling. If that is where you wish to proceed than I will remove myself from the discussion. This is the same topic that I have posted on and had to endure insult instead of well though out rational for your stance.

[Bob Riebe]

Quite right you should question yourself. You are not on the pinnacle of intellectual discourse about this topic by refuting claims as crap with nothing to base it on. You mention elections?
They mean nothing since the Malvina's/Falklands are but a territory. Like The Isle of Man, The Jersey Islands, Guernsey included. Only that they form their own government.

My question to you ioan is , and if you have read what I posted and if you know anything about the Malvina's/Falklands is the fact you mention common sense. What do you find logical as you express it in your last piece of your diatribe where common sense will prevail in this world or "stupid world"? Well it's made up of stupid people since people make up the world as we know it. So for intelligence sake, is it logical to argue that a country hold dominion over islands 8,000 miles away over a country that is 200 miles approximately from their course. People that are educated and first world.

iona, you have heard of Diego Garcia? Well, it is inhabited bythe USAF. Why? Strategic for launching attacks. What about the people that lived there? Kicked off and never allowed to return because they would englander national security. "Your type of same world? Or as long as I'm not affected" ? So, the west takes away the land of people who have lived there since time immemorial and they can justify it like they did the Bikini Island by blowing them to kingdom come all for the sake of what and at the expense of whom.

Then the Europeans should get out of Argentina and return to where ever they came from.
When discovered the Falklands were uninhabited unlike Tierra del Fuego where the people who took Argentina from the indians, eradicated the tribe who lived on one island.
Your verbose cries for the Falklands are hypocritical.

[Bob Riebe]

The only reason there is any interest in the Falkland Islands/Malvinas is the fact that there is a high probababilty of oil north of the islands.

Would the the GB government allow Argentina to stay if they stated a claim over the Isle of Man? Let's say Spain. Would that be allowed? Remember, a territory and not a member. Key to this discussion.
The wool is the industry that drives it.
Do you have any PROOF, beyond your prejudiced opinion, that the sheep herders endured almost two-hundred years of hard living because they knew oil could be extracted in the future?

When did Spain settle or rule the Isle of Man?
Did Spain leave a plaque stating right of ownership on the Isle of Man?
Your analogy is desperately silly.

[glauistean]

Absolutely.
A landlord doesn't actually have to live in the building that they own; nor do they have to live next door or even in the same country.
We have seen the arguments against the Argentinians and not one person has addressed the following. They have not addressed the fact that Falklands/Malvinas is a territory with British citizens. Not a part of GB.

Rollo mentioned a law in a previous and forgive me if I get the spelling wrong. He sated Villa Miseria applied to the Falklands/Malvinas. That is totally incorrect and is not applicable in any way shape of form as it does not apply to a country,territory, or protectorate.

As for those who claim that the Argentinians never set foot on the Malvinas/Falklands then I will repost this excerpt:

When, after1776, the Malvinas were ruled by the Spanish, they were not ruled directly from Spain as a separate entity- they were administered from Buenos Aires as part of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata. After it won its independence from Spain, the nascent Argentinian state asserted that the Malvinas were part of its territory and established a settlement there; but Britain sent a naval expedition, which seized the islands from the Buenos Aires government in 1833.
So, there is a cunundrum with your arguments.

[Rollo]

The only reason there is any interest in the Falkland Islands/Malvinas is the fact that there is a high probababilty of oil north of the islands.


If the Falkland Islands became a republic would that change your argument? Why should a republic be taken over by someone else? Do the island have the right to self-determination?


We have seen the arguments against the Argentinians and not one person has addressed the following. They have not addressed the fact that Falklands/Malvinas is a territory with British citizens. Not a part of GB.


I addressed this exactly with the opening post:

The Falklands themselves are a self-governing Territory. They have their own Governor and Legislative Assembly. For all intents and purposes save for the military they are autonomous.


A "self-governing territory", they a are not part of GB and nor has anyone asserted this; therefore your assertion is a bald faced lie.


Rollo mentioned a law in a previous and forgive me if I get the spelling wrong. He sated Villa Miseria applied to the Falklands/Malvinas. That is totally incorrect and is not applicable in any way shape of form as it does not apply to a country,territory, or protectorate.

Are you claiming that the Falklands are a country now? If so, then you've defeated your own argument. If not, then what is your opinion of Hong Kong which was subject to a 99 year lease?
If Villa Miseria doesn't apply to a a country,territory, or protectorate under Argentine law, then please provide proof of this.

[glauistean]

If the Falkland Islands became a republic would that change your argument? Why should a republic be taken over by someone else? Do the island have the right to self-determination?


We have seen the arguments against the Argentinians and not one person has addressed the following. They have not addressed the fact that Falklands/Malvinas is a territory with British citizens. Not a part of GB. [quote=glauistean]

I addressed this exactly with the opening post:


[quote]A "self-governing territory", they a are not part of GB and nor has anyone asserted this; therefore your assertion is a bald faced lie.


Rollo, I've stated a case. Don't ever accuse me of lying. You debase yourself and do an injustice to what was until now a good argument on your behalf. I abhor the implication and as such see no reason for me to participate in this discussion when civilized discourse could be maintained. I am disappointed that you have stooped so low.



Are you claiming that the Falklands are a country now? If so, then you've defeated your own argument. If not, then what is your opinion of Hong Kong which was subject to a 99 year lease?
If Villa Miseria doesn't apply to a a country,territory, or protectorate under Argentine law, then please provide proof of this.[/quote:26azmcsl][/quote:26azmcsl]

[glauistean]

If the Falkland Islands became a republic would that change your argument? Why should a republic be taken over by someone else? Do the island have the right to self-determination?


We have seen the arguments against the Argentinians and not one person has addressed the following. They have not addressed the fact that Falklands/Malvinas is a territory with British citizens. Not a part of GB.


I addressed this exactly with the opening post:


A "self-governing territory", they a are not part of GB and nor has anyone asserted this; therefore your assertion is a bald faced lie.



Are you claiming that the Falklands are a country now? If so, then you've defeated your own argument. If not, then what is your opinion of Hong Kong which was subject to a 99 year lease?
If Villa Miseria doesn't apply to a a country,territory, or protectorate under Argentine law, then please provide proof of this.

Rollo, you have debased me with an accusation of lying which I do not take lightly.

I see no reason for me to continue in this debate as I abhor any such commentary when an argument you disagree with is put forth. I am not in the habit of making grandiose assertions and put them forward as fact. If I feel informed on a topic I will engage. I will not resort to using the Internet as a tool but use my own reading and memory of a topic to write my posts.

Lest anyone conclude that I am disengaging myself from this thread because I can't refute the contents of your post. Don't.

I refuse to be insulted by you or anyone because you disagree. To state someone is lying is to drag yourself into the realm of a malcontent frustrated at not delivering a point with articulation. Note, what I have said and not personally attacked you.

You could do beater Rollo as I enjoyed you comments. I'm disappointed.

[Easy Drifter]

Based on your rather revisionilistic ideas of what history means not only should the Falklands belong to Argentina but many of the Caribbean Islands should change hands (and lose independence) and Canada should revert to French ownership.
Why is it in every thread that people disagree with you the insults and constant 'put downs' of people begin? You blame everyone else but there are many threads here where there are major disagreements with no disparaging comments about the other side. It just seems where you, Glauistean, get involved personal insults begin to fly.
Just because people disagree with you does not mean they are stupid or ill educated. Their entire outlook my be different than yours as, I will admit, mine almost always is.
I almost never agree with Eki, and I do get very riled with him as can be obvious, but I do not consider him to be lacking intelligence. I just think it is misguided.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Glauistean, you just spent most of this thread arguing with a LAWYER and having your head handed to you. Put down the bong....

Never seen more manure finely spread. The whole point of Argentina's war to take over the "Malvinas" was for the Junta to distract the populace of the time what a crappy job they were doing driving the country forward; for basically they were bankrupting the joint. Read 1984, and understand all dictators and thugs usually need a bogeyman to distract the populace..and the bogeyman in this case was the UK and Margaret Thatcher, who they ASSUMED would send the Royal Navy to protect its protectorate. They thought wrong....

[airshifter]

Based on your rather revisionilistic ideas of what history means not only should the Falklands belong to Argentina but many of the Caribbean Islands should change hands (and lose independence) and Canada should revert to French ownership.
Why is it in every thread that people disagree with you the insults and constant 'put downs' of people begin? You blame everyone else but there are many threads here where there are major disagreements with no disparaging comments about the other side. It just seems where you, Glauistean, get involved personal insults begin to fly.
Just because people disagree with you does not mean they are stupid or ill educated. Their entire outlook my be different than yours as, I will admit, mine almost always is.
I almost never agree with Eki, and I do get very riled with him as can be obvious, but I do not consider him to be lacking intelligence. I just think it is misguided.

It's quite a comedy act isn't it? To both claim the intellectual superiority and moral high ground, all while making statements in attempts to belittle any opinion of others. Better yet, to do so while providing no real evidence to back the claims made, and looking for sympathy due to feeling insulted at opposing views.

And here I thought that any real debate should involve the use of some facts, without all the drama! :laugh:

[Mark in Oshawa]

It's quite a comedy act isn't it? To both claim the intellectual superiority and moral high ground, all while making statements in attempts to belittle any opinion of others. Better yet, to do so while providing no real evidence to back the claims made, and looking for sympathy due to feeling insulted at opposing views.

And here I thought that any real debate should involve the use of some facts, without all the drama! :laugh:

There are people in Argentina who wouldn't argue this case with the vociferious and spurrious nature as glauistean has but there you go...logic and facts are not required..just the opinion.

Arguing with Rollo means you better have your A game if you are going to start braking down law...and he didn't have that did he?

[BDunnell]

BDunnel, that you state an argument based upon an occurrence worse than what happened in the Falklands/Malvina's as "nonsensical" and "meaningless" and turning this into a "west against the rest" is I have to say deficient and uninformed and arrogant.
Since GB left the Falklands/Malvina's and then returned when they realized that the Argentines had returned there and used the might of the Empire, bullying to get their way", you seem to have forgotten that and instead of a cogent argument you resort to name calling. If that is where you wish to proceed than I will remove myself from the discussion. This is the same topic that I have posted on and had to endure insult instead of well though out rational for your stance.

You refuse, though, to answer any of the specific points put to you, not least about why it could easily be considered backward of Argentina to perpetuate such an ancient claim. Nor do you tackle the issue of why my comments are 'deficient', 'uninformed' or 'arrogant'. Merely saying that they are doesn't make them so.

[BDunnell]

The whole point of Argentina's war to take over the "Malvinas" was for the Junta to distract the populace of the time what a crappy job they were doing driving the country forward; for basically they were bankrupting the joint.

Absolutely right. The war was quite useful to Margaret Thatcher as a means of distracting attention from problems back home, too, although it would be naive to suggest that this was the primary motivation behind entering into conflict with Argentina over the Falklands. Isn't it interesting that this much is admitted by Britons, including those not supportive of Thatcher or the Conservatives, yet making the same assertion about the Argentinian position brings derision from Argentinians?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Absolutely right. The war was quite useful to Margaret Thatcher as a means of distracting attention from problems back home, too, although it would be naive to suggest that this was the primary motivation behind entering into conflict with Argentina over the Falklands. Isn't it interesting that this much is admitted by Britons, including those not supportive of Thatcher or the Conservatives, yet making the same assertion about the Argentinian position brings derision from Argentinians?

That is interesting Ben. I didn't live in Britain or have any contact with what was going on at that point, since I was but a teenager who read about it on the papers and saw the news at night.

That said, Thatcher's legend was born with her defiance and her sending the Navy and military down to throw the Argie's out.

AS for our friend glauistean; he has been berating me for insulting him and having an opinion different than his for a while now. It has now become silly and tiresome.

Ben, you and I don't always agree, we almost never agree on a lot of things, but I would like to think there is a mutual respect and there would be a lot of good chat over a beer if we met in a pub.

This fella here doesn't understand in the debate world, there is taking things personally, and there are facts......and he is lacking them and he has taken it personally people keep pointing that out. I wouldn't have a beer in a pub with this gent of late, he just takes it too personally...

[Easy Drifter]

He PM'd me and although not quite as nasty as he has been on here it was the usual. I couldn't be bothered to respond as there is, as has been pointed out, no debate.
I too disagree with Ben most of the time and Eki and I are at each others' throats quite often. We also will joke with each other.
I considered, but didn't, put G. on the ignore list. I have never used that or even considered it before.

[BDunnell]

That is interesting Ben. I didn't live in Britain or have any contact with what was going on at that point, since I was but a teenager who read about it on the papers and saw the news at night.

That said, Thatcher's legend was born with her defiance and her sending the Navy and military down to throw the Argie's out.

In which case, you may not also know that the Conservative government withdrew the patrol ship that used to help protect the Falklands shortly before the invasion. It would be wrong to say that this was the sole factor in determining the Argentine decision to invade, but it is certainly part of the background.



Ben, you and I don't always agree, we almost never agree on a lot of things, but I would like to think there is a mutual respect and there would be a lot of good chat over a beer if we met in a pub.

Mark, this is because you are a gentleman, unlike some.

[Malbec]

Isn't it interesting that this much is admitted by Britons, including those not supportive of Thatcher or the Conservatives, yet making the same assertion about the Argentinian position brings derision from Argentinians?

Are you sure about this?

Whilst I agree that almost all Argentineans are united in their belief that the Falklands belong to them, just about every one I have spoken to talks about the war with great sadness as having been unnecessary and political in nature ie to deflect domestic opinion from Argentina's economic woes.

[BDunnell]

Are you sure about this?

Whilst I agree that almost all Argentineans are united in their belief that the Falklands belong to them, just about every one I have spoken to talks about the war with great sadness as having been unnecessary and political in nature ie to deflect domestic opinion from Argentina's economic woes.

Maybe it depends on their own viewpoints and I shouldn't have lumped all Argentinians together. However, I was under the impression that it is at least a popular viewpoint, hence why the issue gets brought up by politicians to this day.

[Rollo]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/10/argentina-falklands-claim-not-valid
Jenkins believes us to be an "expensive legacy of Empire". He should be aware that the Islands are self-financing – except for defence, which is purely because of the continued Argentine claim to my country. And our government has expressed the wish to contribute more to these costs, should oil be discovered in commercial quantities.

This article in The Grauniad was written by Jan Cheek who is a member of the Falkland Islands Legislative Assembly. Admittedly I would like to hear an Argentinian response to all of this though but as far as the Islanders themselves go, it would appear that they consider themselves to be an otherwise autonomous nation.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml
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.

I assume that Argentina would agree to the principles of the UN... especially after they were lent $30bn from the IMF in 2003.

[Mark in Oshawa]

He PM'd me and although not quite as nasty as he has been on here it was the usual. I couldn't be bothered to respond as there is, as has been pointed out, no debate.
I too disagree with Ben most of the time and Eki and I are at each others' throats quite often. We also will joke with each other.
I considered, but didn't, put G. on the ignore list. I have never used that or even considered it before.

He is desperate for one of us to engage him in a private debate. Since I am dopey enough to keep answering him, I suppose I am giving him something, but no more.

Debating is fun when you learn something. He hasn't shown me the ability to debate or have a point yet that isn't just HIS opinion, and while that is fine, his adamant attitude that his opinion is fact while mine is fiction is getting old, especially when I just give him the facts as are well documented.

So....He may be the first one since Janvan to get the ignore... (and I did take Jan off of there...I think I am too nice!)

[Mark in Oshawa]

In which case, you may not also know that the Conservative government withdrew the patrol ship that used to help protect the Falklands shortly before the invasion. It would be wrong to say that this was the sole factor in determining the Argentine decision to invade, but it is certainly part of the background.

I knew of that, but lets face it, no one took the idea seriously that a modern nation such as Argentina would stoop to such an act, and I think Thatcher in her austerity kick was advised that the Falklands would be safe. She made up for that and cemented her image as someone determined to not be pushed around though.




Mark, this is because you are a gentleman, unlike some

I try to be Ben. You and I have had our tussles but I must admit I think both of us have always ended up trying to see the other's side of issues, and I have always enjoyed some of your points, even if I think you are wrong sometimes! Like I said, if we ever run into each other in a pub, a beer and a chat are in order....

[janvanvurpa]

That is interesting Ben. I didn't live in Britain or have any contact with what was going on at that point, since I was but a teenager who read about it on the papers and saw the news at night.

That said, Thatcher's legend was born with her defiance and her sending the Navy and military down to throw the Argie's out.

AS for our friend glauistean; he has been berating me for insulting him and having an opinion different than his for a while now. It has now become silly and tiresome.

Ben, you and I don't always agree, we almost never agree on a lot of things, but I would like to think there is a mutual respect and there would be a lot of good chat over a beer if we met in a pub.

This fella here doesn't understand in the debate world, there is taking things personally, and there are facts......and he is lacking them and he has taken it personally people keep pointing that out. I wouldn't have a beer in a pub with this gent of late, he just takes it too personally...

Perhaps Glaustein is not mentally moored at age 14 where "debating" is so fascinating for some...
Maybe he, like most civilised people, imagine these discussions are dialogs.
Ya Know? Somebody says something, somebody else points out the humor/absurdity/impossibility/outlandishness, and serious people will concede they were wingin' it/just off the cuff/didn't know etc.


And not mere ruminations and post selective memory tidbits and History channel knowledge as facts--and endless assertions..

Just maybe.....

[chuck34]

Perhaps Glaustein is not mentally moored at age 14 where "debating" is so fascinating for some...
Maybe he, like most civilised people, imagine these discussions are dialogs.
Ya Know? Somebody says something, somebody else points out the humor/absurdity/impossibility/outlandishness, and serious people will concede they were wingin' it/just off the cuff/didn't know etc.


And not mere ruminations and post selective memory tidbits and History channel knowledge as facts--and endless assertions..

Just maybe.....

My run in with him was just the opposite. He put up "facts" as he saw them. I went through point by point, linking scientific articles that refuted him. At that point he insulted my intelligence, said that I was somehow not answering questions, and then left in a huff refusing to discuss/debate/dialog any more. Seems to me he was the one just wingin' it, and he refused to concede.

Sort of reminds me of this thread as well.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Perhaps Glaustein is not mentally moored at age 14 where "debating" is so fascinating for some...
Maybe he, like most civilised people, imagine these discussions are dialogs.
Ya Know? Somebody says something, somebody else points out the humor/absurdity/impossibility/outlandishness, and serious people will concede they were wingin' it/just off the cuff/didn't know etc.


And not mere ruminations and post selective memory tidbits and History channel knowledge as facts--and endless assertions..

Just maybe.....

I knew there was a reason I had you on ignore. Like your friend, you think your opinion is greater than anyone elses....

[janvanvurpa]

I knew there was a reason I had you on ignore. Like your friend, you think your opinion is greater than anyone elses....

No, you constantly say that, and like everything else you say it is ONLY YOUR OWN OPINION..

YOU think that your random collection of thoughts on every subject in the world is FACT enough to "debate".

And even a very thorough analysis and exposition of just why your OPINIONS INVARIABLY STATED as FACTS meets the same same same "you think your opinion is greater than..."..

You NEVER concede a single point---that's because this is play acting debate for you, not an effort to question, examine, discuss and learn..

Look the the thousands and thousands of posts 13,000+....you're just here to hear your head rattle, and go on and on and on and on and on--forever.

again, debate is for nerd 14 year olds.. Show some respect for what others write, consider it, and when you've been shown to be just flapping your jaws, admit it...It is a discussion forum, DISCUSS!
Not PONTIFICATE about EVERYTHING, and act like a crybaby when correct or amended.

That's one thing all you right-wing extremists do in common---never ever say "Oh, sheet, i don't know that".

Because you are not interested in any other point of view or in learning anything...

[Mark in Oshawa]

No, you constantly say that, and like everything else you say it is ONLY YOUR OWN OPINION..

YOU think that your random collection of thoughts on every subject in the world is FACT enough to "debate".

And even a very thorough analysis and exposition of just why your OPINIONS INVARIABLY STATED as FACTS meets the same same same "you think your opinion is greater than..."..

You NEVER concede a single point---that's because this is play acting debate for you, not an effort to question, examine, discuss and learn..

Look the the thousands and thousands of posts 13,000+....you're just here to hear your head rattle, and go on and on and on and on and on--forever.

again, debate is for nerd 14 year olds.. Show some respect for what others write, consider it, and when you've been shown to be just flapping your jaws, admit it...It is a discussion forum, DISCUSS!
Not PONTIFICATE about EVERYTHING, and act like a crybaby when correct or amended.

That's one thing all you right-wing extremists do in common---never ever say "Oh, sheet, i don't know that".

Because you are not interested in any other point of view or in learning anything...

Actually Jan, it is just you I don't bother listening to. Don't take it personal, I gave up taking you seriously a long time ago. If I am a right wing extremest, then I hate to know what VOP is.....

[janvanvurpa]

Actually Jan, it is just you I don't bother listening to. Don't take it personal, I gave up taking you seriously a long time ago. If I am a right wing extremest, then I hate to know what VOP is.....

A psychopath and a troll.
aka Floridiot.

You still don't get it.
There is no recognition in your response that you even glanced superficially at my response.

and that's my point: you blather on regardless, heedless, in spite of anything written.

But you said it, it's "debate" and "debate' is about "winning"...

Pitiful really.

[Mark]

Deleted some posts. If you want to get into personal arguments, take it to PM.

[Zico]

I thought this thread was going to be about the UK's future air defense weaknesses especially for defending the Islands if the proposed defence cuts go through..

'The service will lose five warships; 4,000 personnel; its flagship aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal; and the entire Harrier jump-jet arm. The changes to the carriers will also mean that British jets will not fly off a British carrier for up to 10 years'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/8141849/MoD-Leak-how-the-defence-cuts-will-hit-Britains-aircraft-carriers.html

Sounds crazy to me. Your thoughts?

[Mark]

I think it's pretty clear that Argentina has no real interest in taking the Falklands back by force at the moment. The key thing is "at the moment", these defence cuts will be felt for many decades down the line. And who's to say that a new government in Argentina may take a completely different stance on the subject.

A point was made on another forum that just because you think things are ok now it doesn't mean they won't change rapidly, the original Falklands War came about pretty suddenly. The longest build up to war was probably World War 2 where there was a good 5 years where it was looking pretty likely, even with that kind of notice were still talking about our carrier fleet being without aircraft for a good 7 years!

[Hondo]

I can see that once again, using my wisdom that is the envy of King Solomon, I will have to solve this matter once and for all.

Many is the time a parent, faced with two children bickering over the same toy, merely takes the toy away so neither child can have it. I will take the Falklands and give them to the Palestinians. The Palestinians want a homeland, are good with sheep, and have their own defence force. The current residents of the Falklands will be moved to Haiti where they can work on their tans, enjoy a warmer climate and fleece tourists, not sheep. The Haitians will be moved to Somali where they will have a seacoast, disease, warring factions, and poverty...just like at home.

Things may settle down a bit in the Middle East when the Arabs lose their ability to jack with Israel through their current proxy pawns, the Palestinians, and have to do it directly, themselves.

[glauistean]

I can see that once again, using my wisdom that is the envy of King Solomon, I will have to solve this matter once and for all.

Many is the time a parent, faced with two children bickering over the same toy, merely takes the toy away so neither child can have it. I will take the Falklands and give them to the Palestinians. The Palestinians want a homeland, are good with sheep, and have their own defence force. The current residents of the Falklands will be moved to Haiti where they can work on their tans, enjoy a warmer climate and fleece tourists, not sheep. The Haitians will be moved to Somali where they will have a seacoast, disease, warring factions, and poverty...just like at home.

Things may settle down a bit in the Middle East when the Arabs lose their ability to jack with Israel through their current proxy pawns, the Palestinians, and have to do it directly, themselves.

Now that is really good :D

[motetarip]

Things may settle down a bit in the Middle East when the Arabs lose their ability to jack with Israel through their current proxy pawns, the Palestinians, and have to do it directly, themselves.

Sorry to post off topic, but the Palestinians are almost a displaced nation thanks to the re-homing of the Jews after WW2, based on an ancient belief that they own the place. I suggest we move the Jews to Somalia and leave the Palestinians alone.

As for the Falklands... The issue of Argentine ownership does always seem to raise it's head in politically troubled times, and the fact that the might of the Argentine army was kicked off the island by a handful of Britain's finest Royal Marines must stick in the throat, our boys did well.

[donKey jote]

and the fact that the might of the Argentine army was kicked off the island by a handful of Britain's finest Royal Marines must stick in the throat, our boys did well.
The boys did well, yes.
The might of the Argentine army took roughly the same amount of casualties on the ground (without the Belgrano) as the handful of Britain's finest Royal Marines, one of whom I was surprised to meet the other day at work.
It turns out a colleague of mine, my age, is a Falklands veteran :crazy:
I remember still being at school at the time of the war.
My colleague was down there fighting other kids for their lives. :s

[Mark in Oshawa]

Sorry to post off topic, but the Palestinians are almost a displaced nation thanks to the re-homing of the Jews after WW2, based on an ancient belief that they own the place. I suggest we move the Jews to Somalia and leave the Palestinians alone.



If you want to believethat ancient beliefs mean nothing,then I guess the fact that Jews have been in the Middle East all along in not just Isreal but all the Arab nations. Alas, they were never given fair treatment, and rarely left alone. I guess the ancient belief of picking on the Jews is allowed is also one of your core beliefs?

[janvanvurpa]

The longest build up to war was probably World War 2 where there was a good 5 years where it was looking pretty likely, even with that kind of notice were still talking about our carrier fleet being without aircraft for a good 7 years!

Some might suggest that the longest build up to a war was 1815 to 1870, or maybe 1871 to August 1914. Same players France vs Prussia for round 2 and 3 that fought in Southern Belgium where Boney-part was defeated---fianlly.
maybe the most eagerly awaited war too, at least for the upper classes and the aristocracy.

[Rollo]

Sorry to post off topic, but the Palestinians are almost a displaced nation thanks to the re-homing of the Jews after WW2, based on an ancient belief that they own the place. I suggest we move the Jews to Somalia and leave the Palestinians alone.

The land by rights belongs to Britain because they won it in a war. It was therefore Britain's right top do with the spoils of victory as they saw fit.
The current "Palestine" is little more than an attempt to legitimise a terrorist organisation by a people who should be bound by an agreement which they reneged on.
The re-homing of the Jews after WW2 was based on a promise made in 1917.

Actually I think the solution tp the problem is to give everyone citizenship to a new country called "Abraham" and then tell both Arabs and Jews to shut up, put up and get along with each other.

The conflict in Palestine is bloody stupid, and both sides are fundamentally wrong.

[motetarip]

The conflict in Palestine is bloody stupid, and both sides are fundamentally wrong.

Agreed

[Roamy]

holy Sh!t now the Falkland islands have invaded the middle east.
I better start a new thread

[Rollo]

You'd better also watch out for the Greco-Bolivian Alliance and the coalition of Syldavia and Borduria :D

[Roamy]

OHHHH Bolivia - Have you seen their women - freaking outrageous !!!!!!!

[odykas]

This story reminds me of M. Thatcher :\