The Falklands

[Idaho]

Now I do not intend this to be inflamatory and am more than happy to see mods burn it and salt the earth if it does spiral out of control, but it's a topic that seems to be gaining momentum at the moment and I just hope it doesn't end up crossing a line. Any reply to my post here will be met with a courteous response, as should be expected.

The Falklands are a disputed area, and I want to know what this cross nation forum feels about the issue. Personally, I find it rather annoying to see Argentina making such a big issue over it's soveriegnty:

Forgetting for the fact it's never been Argentinian, that Argentina are accusing Britain of colonialism yet they themselves are trying to take over a smaller population without permission, or that they claim they inherited the islands from Spain yet ignore the fact Spain ceded control to Britain long before Argentina came into existance as a nation, the most fundamental point they are keen to ignore is the only people who populate the islands are British and want to remain so.

It is really annoying frankly. Argentina are doing their utmost to make the economic livlihood of the Islanders miserable and are clamouring for support from their allies over the issue yet not respecting the right of choice of the Islanders because they say they have no right to be there, as if they somehow do!

It's also frustrating to see USA actors who haven't a clue on history or law to totally disrespect the right to choose for the inhabitants of the islands and come out and say Britain should hand over soveriegnity. Bit hypocritical really, considering the US' own foreign policy and their own "colonisation" of Hawaii. More importantly, the likes of Sean Penn was an actor who likes to think he favours human rights, but now it seems like he only feels that way for some people and not others. Maybe he's just rascist against Britain...?

On a practical note, I'm happy to see other nations are only paying lip service to Argentina's rhetoric (like only banning the flying of the Falklands' flag and still allowing their ships into port), and Brazil seem to be getting on really well with Harry and Britain right now.

All this recent trouble is probably just to make the government of Argentina appeal to their populace since the 30 years anniversary is coming up, and Argentina are a poor, struggling nation who have their eye on the resources discovered in Falkland's waters.

I believe if it ever comes to conflict (again), Argentina will lose again. Much has been said about Britain not having Aircraft Carriers in action at the moment, but they have got multiple Type 45 Destroyers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_45_destroyer which can shoot down entire squadrons of aircraft all at once. The Argentinian military is using the same equipment it did 30 years ago, so is an even more reduced threat to what it once was.

Hopefully this will deter an unstable government (in the future of course) in Argentina from making any rash moves.

What are other people's views on the matter?

[Tahl]

For me this really is two issues:

1) What makes an area part of a country? Is it the people, the land itself or the Historical ownership? Argentina claims ownership simply due to proximity to the islands, but if the same logic was to be applied then Ireland has no right to independence. The people argument is defunct due to social movement: If I invade somewhere then swamp it with civilians should they be allowed to vote? The history argument is perhaps the least valid of all.

So really what makes a landmass part of a country?

2) As for Argentina's recent aggression within this region: It's easy to draw comparisons between now and the eighties. Tory Government, no aircraft carrier etc etc. In real life the Falklands have a ridiculous amount of defences following the last war. We have an airbase there as well as brand new warships in the area. Plus the stronger EU would be obliged to aid in their defence. Argentina cannot take it through military might.

I don't even think they want to take it.

This is all posturing because we found oil in them and Argentina's government is going losing popularity. They are trying to secure a lucrative deal and also win public support by creating a British Empire boogeyman.

[Idaho]

For me this really is two issues:

1) What makes an area part of a country? Is it the people, the land itself or the Historical ownership? Argentina claims ownership simply due to proximity to the islands, but if the same logic was to be applied then Ireland has no right to independence. The people argument is defunct due to social movement: If I invade somewhere then swamp it with civilians should they be allowed to vote? The history argument is perhaps the least valid of all.

So really what makes a landmass part of a country?

2) As for Argentina's recent aggression within this region: It's easy to draw comparisons between now and the eighties. Tory Government, no aircraft carrier etc etc. In real life the Falklands have a ridiculous amount of defences following the last war. We have an airbase there as well as brand new warships in the area. Plus the stronger EU would be obliged to aid in their defence. Argentina cannot take it through military might.

I don't even think they want to take it.

This is all posturing because we found oil in them and Argentina's government is going losing popularity. They are trying to secure a lucrative deal and also win public support by creating a British Empire boogeyman.

Agreed. I would like to point out though, the populace of Argentina have never inhabited the islands. Spanish colonialists were numbered less than 60 I believe, and were there for around 20 years at most before Spain ceded control of the Islands by treaty to Britain. (I can't remember the details to hand, but for once Britain's position is fairly legally water tight).

The Ireland comparison is an adept one. Forgot about them.

Anyway, it's fashionable and popular to deride Britain for other nations.

[Prince_Asuryan]

Sorry, but the Argies can leave. I believe that the Argentinian President is making a bit of a fuss to detract from other economical issues that are effecting the country. I also believe that should the Falklanders ask to be Argentinian, the British government would even allow them to do so.

What gets my goat up is that Argentina have exhausted political pressure and then subsequently lost in a military conflict. I can't see what claim they really have, and it annoys me that the make such a big deal of it. That they would complain to the UN makes me laugh though, as the UK is permanently on the security council and thus can VETO any kind of action, therefore making it a pointless gesture. We've seen the Chinese and Russians do it that often, so it's nice for it to work for us for a change.

The only thing that really concerns me though is that a number of South American countries are helping. Hopefully they are just trying to appease the Argies and it will all blow over.

[Idaho]

The only thing that really concerns me though is that a number of South American countries are helping. Hopefully they are just trying to appease the Argies and it will all blow over.

This worried me at first, but when you consider the nitty gritty details. all those countries have done is agree in principle. Even the embargo they agreed to was symbolic, as Falklands fishing boats can still dock in their ports provided they don't fly the Falklands flag.

And isn't it a coincidence Prince Harry was sent to Brazil in the midst of all this?

[Aerendar Valandil]

Mr. Idaho, you're completely right. And I was (and am) thoroughly anti-Thatcher, the first Falkland War was the one and only thing she did right.

[Idaho]

Mr. Idaho, you're completely right. And I was (and am) thoroughly anti-Thatcher, the first Falkland War was the one and only thing she did right.

Actually she did something else right - she left office!

[Paraicj]

The British presence in the Falklands is a relatively pointless hangover from colonial times. Britain have no tangible right to the islands in a modern world. They didn't "discover" the islands. Power was ceded to them by another group with no rights to the land beyond colonialism. Having "British people" there gives no right. Winning a war in the 80s gives no right. Curiously, in 1832/33 (depending on which internet source is right) they kicked an Argentinean penal colony off the island (Despite protestations) to resume an occupation that ended with the US war of independence.

Hilarious wiki quote:

In 1774, economic pressures leading up to the American Revolutionary War forced Great Britain to withdraw from many overseas settlements. Upon withdrawal the British left behind a plaque asserting her continued claim.

A plaque! Hehehe. Good work, that's a step below even a flag. * Insert Eddie Izzard clip *

France and Spain also had times in charge, should the land be ceded to them? No. I think the Argies are making too big a fuss over the thing, but I also agree that the UK saying "But they want to be part of us" is a bit much. Argentina was barely a sovereign nation when other countries started their merry round-about of Falklands ownership, they never really had a chanceto establish a foothold what with the number of countries in line for a go in charge.

The Irish comparison is clearly less than apt (Or adept?). Yes, the UK was the closest neighbour, but Ireland was capable of running its own nation, the Falklands are not. If the Falklands wanted to and were capable of self-governance, I would be all for it. An island chain with about 1500 people in the south atlantic is not a nation though, and I doubt self-governance is an option. But given the nature of the world we live in, and the bad taste in everyones' mouths about colonialism today, keeping the islands because the people you put there as settlers want to stay a part of you is apolitic to the extreme. Of course they want to stay in the UK, they are mostly from there originally.

Both sides are needlessly full of posturing (as is always the case), but England claiming a moral high-ground on this is really very silly. But Idaho, calling Argentina a poor struggling nation when the UK is billions in debt (1004 billion apparently! [over 2200 if you add all the bank money]) and Argentina (not 1004 billion in debt, lower debt to GDP than UK) is in the G20 is a really vain, typically English viewpoint. Good work on that, you must be proud of your cutting political commentary. Way to not be inflammatory. Or patronising. How "annoying".

As you might have guessed, I'm not particularly serious about the whole thing, but it never takes me long to kick off a "Britannia rule the waves" cap for whatever reason. Idaho finds it "annoying" that some country has the temerity to claim a piece of land that is claimed by another country thousands of miles away. Annoying? Surely you mean to say you find it to be "a rational, politically motivated and nationalistic stance on an area of land you have claimed unsuccessfully since you became a country". Maybe the "annoying" was some sort of Freudian patronising typo...

Pointing out the size of the UK's military dick is probably unnecessary as well, it's fairly well established that they could murder the Argie army over some rocks if they felt like swinging it round in the south atlantic.

I don't care who takes charge of the Falklands, but claiming it as British land because you planted a pile of Brits there a while back and saying they still see themselves as Brits now is disingenuous.

[Idaho]

I must politely point you to this article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17045169 which contains much of the information from both sides of the argument in an easy to read format, so we you don't have to go sifting through much of contradictory information out there. Generally the BBC gets this sort of thing right.

And to address your points:

1) As you can see from the article above the person who first set foot on the islands was a British Naval captain. This is only predated by someone sailing by and spotting the islands.

2) The Falklands are entirely self sufficient, barring military defence. So why you think Ireland is capable of running it's own nation but the Falklands are not is beyond me?

3) You are so rude I am not going to continue discussion with you. I was begining to make a whole bunch of points, including talking about the Argentinian economic situation but then I thought "wow, this guy is so full of arrogance and rascist, why should I bother?" You're saying you're not particularly serious, but that doesn't justify your rudeness or insulting posts.

So I made a couple gramatical errors, big deal, I'm typing whilst myself and my partner are caring for a sick child. So I generalised my feelings on the issue to a single word, to save time and because it wasn't really pertitant to the discussion, yet you have singled me out for ridicule to discredit me.

It's clear you are a Irishman who feels the Protestants in the North have no right to be there even though they lived their all their lives for generations. Well aren't you compassionate and understanding, I bet you are a hoot at parties, always moaning about the English because the monkey on your back weighs so much.

Mods, please close this thread down, I can't bear the thought of such a person engaging me in discussion in any shape or form. I apologise for being short sighted enough to think there would be a reasonable conversation from both sides of the coin.

[Tahl]

To be brutally honest, Ireland isn't self sufficient in Education, Health or Defence and since the collapse has relied heavily on British / EU cash to bail it out so it's lost Economy as well. I'm not too sure if you can justifiably call it an independent nation without these key things. I mean what's really left?

Other than some flag waving and anti-British rhetoric it's probably less self sufficient than the Falklands.

I mean this all loops round to my main point of what makes a nation a nation, or a landmass part of a nation?

[Paraicj]

Jeez Idaho, I don't give a crap who lives on Islands, be it Northern Ireland or the Falklands. However, the Falklands are on a UN list of former colonies assumed to be "almost impossible ... to survive as viable, fully independent states". I wasn't swinging for emotion there, the islands are seen as needing a helping hand. (That's your point no 2)

As for someone setting foot on the island, what has that to do with it? The idea that that constitutes owning a place is what colonialism was all about. The first settlement was French, as the BBC and wikipedia both say. A Portugee serving Spain first saw the islands. Which is the best way? My argument was that the colonial idea of FIRST is pretty out of touch with the modern world. (That's your point no 1)

All of my points beyond that were a very tongue in cheek response to your poorly thought-out use of "annoying" to describe something that is clearly more than that, as well as the dismissive nature of your description of Argentina. I'm sorry that your child is sick, but maybe posting something emotive on the 'net could have waited til they got better so you could have been clear and concise instead of over-generalising and patronising-sounding.

The only thing "clear" about me is that I'm an Irishman. My views on the North are not clear from what I have said. I "clearly" said the Irish example was a bad one, so why would my ideas on that situation be in any way linked to a situation I see as completely different? It is you who saw them as equated when mentioned, not me. I'd rather the North was sawn off and pushed into the Atlantic, it's no use to anyone.

Racist? I don't even know where to start with that. Race? Where was race even...I...

Arrogant I'll give you, but it was a response in kind. I didn't dismiss a whole country's claim on territory as annoying. The "ridicule" I singled you out for is because you made the points, not anyone else. If someone else described Argentina's stance as annoying, I'd have singled them out as patronising instead. You'll note, however, that they didn't.

Finally, I am a massive hoot at parties. Like, super-massive. The banter seldom ends with me around.

[Loflar]

From my uninformed point of view, it seems that ascendant South American countries are aiming at control of their close neighbourhood. Given close relations of UK and USA, Falklands could be seen as possible US military outpost in a similar way Cuba used to be seen as Soviet military outpost by USA. Talking about rights is probably just a rhetorics from both sides. And yes, everyone wants the oil.

That being said, I would like to read opinion of our resident Argentinian

[Greenman]

There is a difference between Irish sovereignty and English claims to islands in the South Atlantic.
Ireland is Irish and the British army shouldn't be there.

If Britain really did give a stuff about it's subjects there, She might have offered to bring them home.

This is a point of view based on the gerrymandering that continues to defy democratic process. Whether Northern Irish peoples still want to be considered British probably takes second place, in the current economic climate, to a fear that the European Community will desert them in the same manner as Greece.

As far as I know, there's no oil in Northern Ireland.

Idaho, making this a personal issue doesn't help the discussion. As you've pointed out, choosing to ignore the ballocks is the wisest course.

[EricJ]

Gods, politicians can be so childish sometimes.

[Greenman]

[quote="EricJ"]Gods, politicians can be so childish sometimes [quote]

Que?

[EricJ]

wat

I'm suggesting Argentina and England are re-enacting something out of a kindergarten sandbox, with Argentina "asserting her legitimate claim" to a particular corner where England, who considers the situation "non-negotiable", is currently sitting. I learned to get along and share my toys by the time I was 6, (or at worst ask an adult to settle the situation) it seems England and Argentina haven't.

The main difference is that when kids have these disputes, at worst someone ends up bruised and crying. When nations squabble, people die.

[Prince_Asuryan]

If Britain really did give a stuff about it's subjects there, She might have offered to bring them home.

The Falklanders a) don't want to leave and b) want to be British. As far as I can tell Britain is doing everything to support it's subjects there.

[Greenman]

Asuryan, please re-read the sentence and you'll discover I was talking about Ireland.

[Voodoomaster]

If Britain really did give a stuff about it's subjects there, She might have offered to bring them home.

The Falkland Islands are their home, why take them from their homes?

They are British Citizens they can enter or move to the UK whenever they want, they do not want to.

and this is the key point of the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, the people that live there do not want to leave, they have the right to self determination as under the UN Charter and they have made it clear they wish to remain British. Argentina can say all they want but if the people that live there don't want anything to change why would anyone want to negotiate? Gibraltar is the same situation, the people there wish to remain British and as a result they will never permit the British Govt to negotiate any change to Gib's status.
The same goes to the falklands, its citizens do not want the british govt to negotiate so why would it disobey the wishes of the islanders?

[Allerion]

It's also frustrating to see USA actors who haven't a clue on history or law to totally disrespect the right to choose for the inhabitants of the islands and come out and say Britain should hand over soveriegnity. Bit hypocritical really, considering the US' own foreign policy and their own "colonisation" of Hawaii. More importantly, the likes of Sean Penn was an actor who likes to think he favours human rights, but now it seems like he only feels that way for some people and not others. Maybe he's just rascist against Britain...?

[Greenman]

If Britain really did give a stuff about it's subjects there, She might have offered to bring them home.

The Falkland Islands are their home, why take them from their homes?

They are British Citizens they can enter or move to the UK whenever they want, they do not want to.

and this is the key point of the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, the people that live there do not want to leave, they have the right to self determination as under the UN Charter and they have made it clear they wish to remain British. Argentina can say all they want but if the people that live there don't want anything to change why would anyone want to negotiate? Gibraltar is the same situation, the people there wish to remain British and as a result they will never permit the British Govt to negotiate any change to Gib's status.
The same goes to the falklands, its citizens do not want the british govt to negotiate so why would it disobey the wishes of the islanders?

I agree.

Home in this context - my apologies for the ambiguity - would be to England from Ireland.

The point made is that while we might assume the majority of inhabitants on Falkland would prefer to remain under British rule, in Northern Ireland, representation of opinion of the majority has been, and continues to be ignored.

In the past, land has been one of the greatest source of wealth, supplying the interests of a few under a feudal system.These days, it's also oil.
I hope the Falklanders make a mint from drilling rights and associated industry but the chances are, Britain will shoulder the cost of maintaining a military presence while multi-national companies, dominated by the US will make the billions. That's just a guess. I'm also guessing increased oil production there will have no impact on some of the highest petrol prices, here in Europe.

If the latter turns out to be true, how could we not be cynical of the interests of some of our decision-makers, regarding Falkland Sovereignty?

[Elithmar]

Invasions aren't really seen as very good these days. People live in the Falklands, and it's going to stay like that. If the Argentinians try to take the Falklands, they'll get thrashed. They can't really compete with us.

[Prince_Asuryan]

Invasions aren't really seen as very good these days. People live in the Falklands, and it's going to stay like that. If the Argentinians try to take the Falklands, they'll get thrashed. They can't really compete with us.

The Falklands are a prime example of why I think the scrapping of the 'Illustrious' and the 'Ark Royal' before the 'Queen Elizabeth' was ready was a massive error on the part of the British Government. Considering we're only one of 3 blue water navies in the world, I think not having any Aircraft Carriers for like, 4 years is a big, big problem. The fact that our capital ship is an amphibious assault ship is quite frankly embarrassing.

[Tahl]

Invasions aren't really seen as very good these days. People live in the Falklands, and it's going to stay like that. If the Argentinians try to take the Falklands, they'll get thrashed. They can't really compete with us.

The Falklands are a prime example of why I think the scrapping of the 'Illustrious' and the 'Ark Royal' before the 'Queen Elizabeth' was ready was a massive error on the part of the British Government. Considering we're only one of 3 blue water navies in the world, I think not having any Aircraft Carriers for like, 4 years is a big, big problem. The fact that our capital ship is an amphibious assault ship is quite frankly embarrassing.

Warfare has moved on, we don't need an aircraft carrier to defend the Falklands, we now have an airbase there with some very fancy anti-aircraft missile systems there, in addition to the Type 45 which just drops aircraft like flies.

That's before we factor in things like mid-air refuelling and Britains not inconsiderable long range missile capabilities along with the nuclear submarine we have in the area also capable of firing missiles.

I'm not sure Argentina could take it, even if it went full on.

[Loki17]

It's also frustrating to see USA actors who haven't a clue on history or law to totally disrespect the right to choose for the inhabitants of the islands and come out and say Britain should hand over soveriegnity. Bit hypocritical really, considering the US' own foreign policy and their own "colonisation" of Hawaii. More importantly, the likes of Sean Penn was an actor who likes to think he favours human rights, but now it seems like he only feels that way for some people and not others. Maybe he's just rascist against Britain...?

[Aryel]

Most of the people in England say they belong to the falklanders (and to England), and most of the people in Argentina thing they belong to Argentina. I say we should make the island a Jurassic Park Theme Park.

[Voodoomaster]

Most of the people in England say they belong to the falklanders (and to England), and most of the people in Argentina thing they belong to Argentina. I say we should make the island a Jurassic Park Theme Park.

Too Cold and Windy

Hawaii, the Canary Islands or one of the Caribbean however

[Aryel]

Most of the people in England say they belong to the falklanders (and to England), and most of the people in Argentina thing they belong to Argentina. I say we should make the island a Jurassic Park Theme Park.

Too Cold and Windy

Hawaii, the Canary Islands or one of the Caribbean however

See? You English people aren't willing to compromise.

[Elithmar]

Hey, why don't we kick everyone off the Earth and turn it into one GIANT Jurassic Park for... wait, everyone went, didn't they?

[Loflar]

Most of the people in England say they belong to the falklanders (and to England), and most of the people in Argentina thing they belong to Argentina. I say we should make the island a Jurassic Park Theme Park.

Too Cold and Windy

Hawaii, the Canary Islands or one of the Caribbean however

OK, Isla Nublar, the original location, was located by the coast of Costa Rica, which is somewhat closer to equator, but human ingenuity can definitely overcome that: http://www.zooplzen.cz/o-nas/dinopark/