The Falklands

[Prince_Asuryan]

I think that being in control of somewhere for nearly 200 years does give serious clout to the claim. I think that also makes the inhabitants historically British, and historically Falklanders. There's more British-Falklanders than there are Argetinian-Falklanders. By your logic, Scotland, Wales and Ireland should all be made separate countries again, and every single colony should be returned to whoever owns it. Incidentally how do you define who gets original ownership of any colony or former colony?

What makes me laugh about the situation is how Argentina is pretending it's doing this all by the book etc, which is only happening because they got battered when they tried to take it by force and know they can't do it again.

[Aryel]

What makes me laugh about the situation is how Argentina is pretending it's doing this all by the book etc, which is only happening because they got battered when they tried to take it by force and know they can't do it again.

Do you know that we were ruled by one of the most bloodiest dictatorships ever, back then... right? And now we live under a democratic govt.? And we didn't even move troops in our own borders? Maybe that's why you all talk about war, because you're used to take everything by force, so you think the rest are the same.

God, I love my english friends, but sometimes you people are frustrating.

[Keith]

I think that being in control of somewhere for nearly 200 years does give serious clout to the claim. I think that also makes the inhabitants historically British, and historically Falklanders. There's more British-Falklanders than there are Argetinian-Falklanders. By your logic, Scotland, Wales and Ireland should all be made separate countries again, and every single colony should be returned to whoever owns it. Incidentally how do you define who gets original ownership of any colony or former colony?

What makes me laugh about the situation is how Argentina is pretending it's doing this all by the book etc, which is only happening because they got battered when they tried to take it by force and know they can't do it again.

It's funny to you that the Argentinians were kicked out by force, and then were ignored by the British government when they sought recourse? Surely you don't mean that.

The Argentinian government made a mistake to try to take them by force, and further leads more credence to why they had tried diplomacy for almost 150 years.

If you can't see the difference between how Scotland and England became one and how the Falklands situation developed then you are either,

A) Incredibly ignorant to the history of the situation.

or

B) an idiot.


Now, I prefer to assume the former.

To your "comparison" regarding all other colonies. It would only work if Britain, when colonizing, say... India, removed all Indians and then shipped a lot of British people there, and then started calling those British people "Indians" and as defense said that the Indians wanted to stay British.

[dabber]

Do you know that we were ruled by one of the most bloodiest dictatorships ever, back then... right? And now we live under a democratic govt.?

Regarding the Falklands, why does this matter? From everything I have read, the Argentinian people are fairly passionate about the Falklands, whatever the government says. Not crazy-stupid passionate (see middle east), but more widely invested than I would expect.

In fact, I'd say various past Argentinian governments, dictatorship or not, and the current government are being basically the same regarding the Falklands. The one dictatorship escalated to military action in an effort to prop themselves up, and the current government seems to be escalating the Falklands issue for the same reason. The Falklands is used as a distraction from the failures of the Argentinian government at home.

And we didn't even move troops in our own borders? Maybe that's why you all talk about war, because you're used to take everything by force, so you think the rest are the same.
God, I love my english friends, but sometimes you people are frustrating.

Please explain this better. I'm not British, but I understand the British position completely, while I don't understand why Argentina considers this worthy of their time.
If Argentina had never resorted to military action, Britian probably would not consider it worthy of their time.



@Keith I think Prince Asuryan's main point is that looking back into history has to stop at some point. Do you go back 50 years? 200 years? 1000 years? I think going back before the birth of anyone living there now is clearly too far.

[Keith]

@Keith I think Prince Asuryan's main point is that looking back into history has to stop at some point. Do you go back 50 years? 200 years? 1000 years? I think going back before the birth of anyone living there now is clearly too far.

I agree, but it has always been disputed. Britain has never had undisputed rights to the territory, so say the -only- thing that matters is what the people you put there want is a joke.


Also, Aryel, was mentioning the dictator because it wasn't a decision (to invade) that was made by a representative of the people, but a strong man.

[Aryel]

Lets be honest here. Nor Britain or Argentina cares about the islanders. What matters here is that the islands are part of a strategic point concerning Antartica, and also oil and fishing (IIRC) resources.

Also, as an argentinian, I don't like having one of the most powerful navys and armies with a base quite literally in my backyard. Especially with the records of the british empire.

[Prince_Asuryan]

What makes me laugh about the situation is how Argentina is pretending it's doing this all by the book etc, which is only happening because they got battered when they tried to take it by force and know they can't do it again.

Do you know that we were ruled by one of the most bloodiest dictatorships ever, back then... right? And now we live under a democratic govt.? And we didn't even move troops in our own borders? Maybe that's why you all talk about war, because you're used to take everything by force, so you think the rest are the same.

God, I love my english friends, but sometimes you people are frustrating.

A fair point, and one I hadn't considered at the time of writing, but the point remains the same. Has anyone ever 'taken' anything by diplomatic means? And any country that's had an Empire has only ever gotten it by force. Taking land considered owned - as is the case with the Falklands, will only ever be taken by force or returned by the country because it wants to.

It's funny to you that the Argentinians were kicked out by force, and then were ignored by the British government when they sought recourse? Surely you don't mean that.

Not ha-ha funny, but certainly odd. As for the 'ignored for recourse', too right. They invaded British held territory, and you expect the Brits to a) let them keep it, and b) not give them recourse after fighting them off? If you refer to the 1800's event, that is rather a long time ago, especially as people on the Island identify themselves as British. Returned colonies like India were consulted as to what they wanted. The Falklands is not considered to be a colony to return to Argentina or this issue wouldn't exist.

If you can't see the difference between how Scotland and England became one and how the Falklands situation developed then you are either,

A) Incredibly ignorant to the history of the situation.

or

B) an idiot.

Assume all you like. I'm neither an idiot, I fully comprehend the history of my own country. I'd argue you have rather misunderstood my point as Dabber has pointed out. In any situation, how far do you go back to return land to it's original owners? The UK is a convenient example. In Soctlands case one can argue it was a peaceful merger of the crowns, but the current political turmoil in regards to Scotlands independence shows that it's still considered by more militant Scots to be a forceful occupation.

Wales and Ireland are certainly very similar to the Falklands, with forced invasions and military might holding the countries until people gave up. Wales is British but the people are Welsh - should they split. And I don't think I need to say much more than the IRA to illustrate some of Irelands views.

My point is the places have people who claim they should have an independent government and country. I assume you support them then? If we consider the upcoming Scottish vote about full independence, should the UK cut them loose and make them independent, even if the referendum indicates that's not what the Scottish people want, even though it's government does? If you are supporting Argentina, the only answer is yes.

Nb. For clarification, I'm a Scot living in England and I'm very much against Scottish independence, although if the majority want it they should get it.

[Keith]

It's funny to you that the Argentinians were kicked out by force, and then were ignored by the British government when they sought recourse? Surely you don't mean that.

Not ha-ha funny, but certainly odd. As for the 'ignored for recourse', too right. They invaded British held territory, and you expect the Brits to a) let them keep it, and b) not give them recourse after fighting them off? If you refer to the 1800's event, that is rather a long time ago, especially as people on the Island identify themselves as British. Returned colonies like India were consulted as to what they wanted. The Falklands is not considered to be a colony to return to Argentina or this issue wouldn't exist.

Of course I was refering to the 1800s, you know, when the British basically invaded the Falklands and removed the Argentinians, then ignored diplomatic attempts by Argentina to rectify the situation.

Also, again...

Returned colonies like India were consulted as to what they wanted.

It was also an indigenous population in India. As I explained before, India wasn't solely made up of people the British PUT THERE.

Keep ignoring that point if you want, but it makes your argument seem rather silly.

It is laughable that you "consulted" India about their country being "returned" to them.

[Prince_Asuryan]

Of course I was refering to the 1800s, you know, when the British basically invaded the Falklands and removed the Argentinians, then ignored diplomatic attempts by Argentina to rectify the situation.

Also, again...

That IS how things were done in the 1800's of course. And technically speaking, the British first gained control of the Islands in around 1765. Argentina didn't exist until 1816. So there's that.

Returned colonies like India were consulted as to what they wanted.

It was also an indigenous population in India. As I explained before, India wasn't solely made up of people the British PUT THERE.

Keep ignoring that point if you want, but it makes your argument seem rather silly.

It is laughable that you "consulted" India about their country being "returned" to them.

[/quote]

The British were on Argentina before Argentina existed, and certainly didn't own it before the British. The people the Brits put there were some of the original inhabitants - if you ignore France or Spain, both of whom ceded their rights of ownership to the British.

[Keith]

Of course I was refering to the 1800s, you know, when the British basically invaded the Falklands and removed the Argentinians, then ignored diplomatic attempts by Argentina to rectify the situation.

Also, again...

That IS how things were done in the 1800's of course. And technically speaking, the British first gained control of the Islands in around 1765. Argentina didn't exist until 1816. So there's that.

Returned colonies like India were consulted as to what they wanted.

It was also an indigenous population in India. As I explained before, India wasn't solely made up of people the British PUT THERE.

Keep ignoring that point if you want, but it makes your argument seem rather silly.

It is laughable that you "consulted" India about their country being "returned" to them.

The British were on Argentina before Argentina existed, and certainly didn't own it before the British. The people the Brits put there were some of the original inhabitants - if you ignore France or Spain, both of whom ceded their rights of ownership to the British.

The bolded part is outright false. France ceded to Spain, Britain LEFT the island with an agreement that Spain would not take over their port. Later Spain left and ceded to Argentina, as part of Argentina becoming its own country.

This left Argentina with rights to the eastern part of the islands, and Britain with rights to the western part.

So it was (A) after all

[Elithmar]

If someone is born in a country, as far as I'm concerned they belong to that country (depending on whether their parents lived there or just went on holiday there etc. etc. you get the point). Those people on the Falkland Islands for the most part will have been born there and lived there all their lives, as their parents probably will have done. They're Falklanders. So it's their island, and they can decide to whom they want their island to belong.

[Keith]

If someone is born in a country, as far as I'm concerned they belong to that country (depending on whether their parents lived there or just went on holiday there etc. etc. you get the point). Those people on the Falkland Islands for the most part will have been born there and lived there all their lives, as their parents probably will have done. They're Falklanders. So it's their island, and they can decide to whom they want their island to belong.

I have a plan regarding the Isle of Man, It might take some time, but if all of us here agree, we can (or more accurately our grandchildren can) turn it into an Ulthuan in the real world....

[Prince_Asuryan]

The British were on Argentina before Argentina existed, and certainly didn't own it before the British. The people the Brits put there were some of the original inhabitants - if you ignore France or Spain, both of whom ceded their rights of ownership to the British.

The bolded part is outright false. France ceded to Spain, Britain LEFT the island with an agreement that Spain would not take over their port. Later Spain left and ceded to Argentina, as part of Argentina becoming its own country.

This left Argentina with rights to the eastern part of the islands, and Britain with rights to the western part.

So it was (A) after all

Thats the Argentine view. From British perspective we had the first settlements on the islands and never gave up that sovreignty . The spanish claim was never acknowledged thus rendering it moot. I don't think the notion that Argentina ever really held the islands before the Brits really holds much weight considering the circumstances

[dabber]

The problem for me is the Argentinian position requires looking a long way back in history, to before Argentina existed. I don't see how a claim based on history can be very important when it goes that far back in time. After some amount of time removal you have to say that the history is no longer significant in deciding present day correctness, and I think this one is WAY past that point.

Also, as an argentinian, I don't like having one of the most powerful navys and armies with a base quite literally in my backyard. Especially with the records of the british empire.

Admittedly this is a side point, but when was the last time a foriegn navy besides the USA initiatied ANYTHING in North or South America? The Monroe Doctrine of 1823 told everyone else to stay out, and they largely have.
(I'm not saying the Monroe Doctrine is in any way "good", just that any concern about a non-USA military base is unreasonable)

[Keith]

The British were on Argentina before Argentina existed, and certainly didn't own it before the British. The people the Brits put there were some of the original inhabitants - if you ignore France or Spain, both of whom ceded their rights of ownership to the British.

The bolded part is outright false. France ceded to Spain, Britain LEFT the island with an agreement that Spain would not take over their port. Later Spain left and ceded to Argentina, as part of Argentina becoming its own country.

This left Argentina with rights to the eastern part of the islands, and Britain with rights to the western part.

So it was (A) after all

Thats the Argentine view. From British perspective we had the first settlements on the islands and never gave up that sovreignty . The spanish claim was never acknowledged thus rendering it moot. I don't think the notion that Argentina ever really held the islands before the Brits really holds much weight considering the circumstances

So.. just because Britain doesn't recognize a claim, it makes that claim moot? And, they did recognize Spain's claim! Just because they didn't recognize Argentina's (via Spain) doesn't make it moot, or less legitimate.

Again, I am NOT saying Britain should just give up their rights to the island. Just that the attitude and arguments being made by brits here, are pretty arrogant and feeble.

[Elithmar]

Again, I am NOT saying Britain should just give up their rights to the island. Just that the attitude and arguments being made by brits here, are pretty arrogant and feeble.

Well I find the Argentine arguments pretty poor too for that matter. I can't go up to my neighbour and say "I want your house because it's got a nice garden"! Also, if the Falklanders want to be British, we'll damn well make sure no one is going to take their islands. If they want to be Argentine, Argentina can have the Falklands in my opinion.

[Prince_Asuryan]

Again, I am NOT saying Britain should just give up their rights to the island. Just that the attitude and arguments being made by brits here, are pretty arrogant and feeble.

Compared to the Argentines, who are effectively ignoring the Falklanders rights, and decide their claim is stronger, I think we're justified taking an attitude of indignation. And the arguments made are far less feeble than that of the Argentines.

As for the Spanish claim - 1) Britain claimed the Islands in 1690, and didn't renounce them. They tolerated the Spanish because they had more important things to do. Neither side renounced sovereignty and 2) Some would argue that Spain renounced their claims after they left Port Louis. Secondly, Argentina after 1833 stopped making claims for over 50 years which in international law would indicate they'd renounced claims.

Finally, The UN treaty of Lisbon concluded the Falklands were British. It really is the Argentines making the feeble arguments.

[Loflar]

Lets be honest here. Nor Britain or Argentina cares about the islanders. What matters here is that the islands are part of a strategic point concerning Antartica, and also oil and fishing (IIRC) resources.

Also, as an argentinian, I don't like having one of the most powerful navys and armies with a base quite literally in my backyard. Especially with the records of the british empire.

And what do other argentinians say? I mean, people in a pub, your friends, typical newspapers, and so on? What do they suggest, if diplomacy does not work?

I have a plan regarding the Isle of Man, It might take some time, but if all of us here agree, we can (or more accurately our grandchildren can) turn it into an Ulthuan in the real world....

That is simply a declaration of independence. It does happen. However, I suggest not to call the new country Ulthuan, because then GW would confiscate it on grounds of copyright and trade mark infringement

[Prince of Spires]

Out of curiosity, but who cares what kind of vague historic argument people have to legitimise these kind of claims (this goes for both sides of the argument by the way). Perhaps it's because I live in Europe, but to me these historic claims are just window dressing and pretty much useless.

Reason being: Over the past 2500 years, the netherlands (or parts of) has belonged to the Kelts, Romans, Franks, Saxons, Friesians, Flanders, France, Britain, Spain, Austro-hungaria, Holy roman empire, Germany, themselves and probably a few others I've missed. All of them gained it by force at some point (or simply by moving a lot of people in it). Whos claim is then the right one? Probably the only legitimate claim can be said to belong to either the Kelts or the Romans, since they were there before anyone else was and they were simply kicked out by force. Historic claims are of absolutely no use here. You can only look at what the people who live there now want. Which is basically the idea of democracy.

Why would it matter who did what in a time before even your great-grandparents were born? Looking at the argument so far, the earliest date that has come up was in the 1600s somewhere. That's 400 years ago. How can that be at all relevant to the current situation? It is something like 16 generations ago. The whole idea of britain and argentina and spain was completely different back then.

Besides, why would the spanish have had any claim to argentina back then and later be allowed to grant them their independance? Going by the logic that argentina has some claim on the falklands because of what happend before anyone now living was born, argentina was stolen from the local natives by the spanish. So spanish and later argentinian governments were not actually legitimate owners of the land and could thus not make any claims to any part of it.

Besides, the only reason Argentina is making a fuss over it is because it's in a strategic location and they found oil their. So money and power. It has nothing to do with "setting history straight" or doing the right thing.

In my mind there is only one thing that counts: What do the people who live there want? This is also the only thing that can ever matter. This by the way is even backed up (in a way) by the universal declaration of human rights. Check around article 21 or so: basically everyone has a right to be live in a democracy and take part in their government. If the people of the falklands as a whole want to be part of britain then that is their democratic right. If they want to be part of Argentina or be independant, then that is their right too.

Rod

[Elf_And_Safety]

I agree with Rod. The distant past really just does not matter here. Argentina just aint getting that island back without making enemies of everyone in the western world. To get it back, they will have to uproot 1500 people. Where I live, the government is putting in a new road and forcing 3 families to move, and it's the political storm of the week. Imagine moving 1500

[The Silly Dragon]

Just wanted to point out that the 'British Empire' is more or less dead. We have had so many budget cuts to stuff like our navy that we cannot even equip our own Carriers with Aircraft and the iconic Harrier Jumpjet that was (if memeroy serves me) pivotal to the war in Falklands. Perhaps thats why Argentina wants to provoke an invasion because they know are navy is weakened and our soldiers are tired and demoralised by fighting in the middle east too much? Just a thought.

Also if the British Government was to go to war for no reason then there would be riots etc in England as we are not 'THAT' kind of country (not anymore and haven't been for a long time).

I completly agree with historic rights etc. It matters very little when the people there right now (today) wants what they do (i can't presume what unless a vote is taken, if one has been then sorry for my ignorance).

England considers themselves to be 'spreading' (for lack of a better word) Democracy (hence why the Iraq war was 'allowed' by the public but thats a different debate). So your damn right we will protect the Falklanders if they wish to remain British and Argentina invades.

I highly doubt Argentina will invade 1) It got them nowhere before (yes like i said our navy is severly weakened but i still think we can push them back again) and 2) Its a modern world that shuns invasion and war (look at the repercussions of vast amount of people here in England who opposed the Iraq war and who see Tony Blair as an evil SOB (i certainly do!). If they were to invade it will not go well with organisations like the UN and its allies and that can never be good can it?

You don't like a base being so close to you? What about a base so far away from Britain? Look at the Falklands war and how hard it was to get resources there for us Brits. If it was a 'foothold' to an invasion of our own then you would have very early notification and can you really see modern day England invading a peaceful country? (i admittidly know little of Argentin today but i view them as peaceful aren't you?).

[Musashi]

An argument to maintain a credible military that can project power, have friends that at a minimum won't sabotage you and hold on to a Permanent UNSC seat.

[Voodoomaster]

Again, I am NOT saying Britain should just give up their rights to the island. Just that the attitude and arguments being made by brits here, are pretty arrogant and feeble.

The British Argument is simple, the islanders want to remain British, who are we to go against the wishes of the islanders? Its the same as the wishes of the people of Gibraltar.

So long as the Islanders want to remain the British the UK will not negotiate, its not arrogant or feeble its a fact. If we negotiated with Argentina without the islanders consent the UK would be taken to court by the islanders and the European Court of Human Rights would find the UK guilty of Human Rights abuses against the islanders. As under British Law and European Treaty the Falkland Islands are part of the European Union, the same with the Gibraltar.

[Keith]

Again, I am NOT saying Britain should just give up their rights to the island. Just that the attitude and arguments being made by brits here, are pretty arrogant and feeble.

The British Argument is simple, the islanders want to remain British, who are we to go against the wishes of the islanders? Its the same as the wishes of the people of Gibraltar.

So long as the Islanders want to remain the British the UK will not negotiate, its not arrogant or feeble its a fact. If we negotiated with Argentina without the islanders consent the UK would be taken to court by the islanders and the European Court of Human Rights would find the UK guilty of Human Rights abuses against the islanders. As under British Law and European Treaty the Falkland Islands are part of the European Union, the same with the Gibraltar.

My only point was that putting your people into a territory with a disputed claims and then claiming that you won't negotiate as long as your people want to stay with you is a pretty lame way to argue it. It stops them from getting into a legitimate discussion about the original claims to the island.

And they(the people) could take you to court, but they would lose.

[Aryel]

Again, I am NOT saying Britain should just give up their rights to the island. Just that the attitude and arguments being made by brits here, are pretty arrogant and feeble.

The British Argument is simple, the islanders want to remain British, who are we to go against the wishes of the islanders? Its the same as the wishes of the people of Gibraltar.

So long as the Islanders want to remain the British the UK will not negotiate, its not arrogant or feeble its a fact. If we negotiated with Argentina without the islanders consent the UK would be taken to court by the islanders and the European Court of Human Rights would find the UK guilty of Human Rights abuses against the islanders. As under British Law and European Treaty the Falkland Islands are part of the European Union, the same with the Gibraltar.

Now, I'm a person that believes that yes, after all this years, having families living there after several generations, going against the wishes of the islanders is unfair, and if we didn't do it, we should extend a formal apology for the invasion and help with the removal of land mines. But I'd like to point that you still used force to make a colony away from your country and in our back yard and only 1800 km (IIRC) from our capital. And honestly, with your history of interventionism I feel uneasy with a naval base there. The issue is not black and white, and the union jack is right and argies are wrong and "if they want they can come and take it by force", like I'm constantly seeing here and everywhere is starting to get on my nerves.

[dabber]

The issue is not black and white, and the union jack is right and argies are wrong and "if they want they can come and take it by force", like I'm constantly seeing here and everywhere is starting to get on my nerves.

You keep saying that, but you are not doing a good job of explaining why you are frustrated, or why your opponent's reasoning is so flawed/rude/incomplete.

[edit] I had more typed here, but the interesting part is above, so I'm removing what was basically repetition.

[Aryel]

And what do other argentinians say? I mean, people in a pub, your friends, typical newspapers, and so on? What do they suggest, if diplomacy does not work?

Honestly? besides the newspapers, people on the street don't really talk about it. But if diplomacy doesn't work? well... more diplomacy. Most of us don't really want another war. And if more diplomacy fails, I guess we will bitch and moan just to annoy the brits

But really, nobody wants another war here.

PS: It seems it's only Voodles who's not able to post.

[Aryel]

The issue is not black and white, and the union jack is right and argies are wrong and "if they want they can come and take it by force", like I'm constantly seeing here and everywhere is starting to get on my nerves.

You keep saying that, but you are not doing a good job of explaining why you are frustrated, or why your opponent's reasoning is so flawed/rude/incomplete.

[edit] I had more typed here, but the interesting part is above, so I'm removing what was basically repetition.

It's mostly the warmongering part that gets on my nerves.

You know what's funny (and when I mean funny, I mean sad)? I read somewhere that before the wars both countries had lots of talk to transfer the islands to Argentinian hands. Another way that fucking dictatorship screwed us.

As half spaniard and half english this whole situation is awful (not to mention I share the same last name of the english admiral). God dammit Galtieri, I hope there's a hell and you're rotting there.

[Prince_Asuryan]

Again, I am NOT saying Britain should just give up their rights to the island. Just that the attitude and arguments being made by brits here, are pretty arrogant and feeble.

The British Argument is simple, the islanders want to remain British, who are we to go against the wishes of the islanders? Its the same as the wishes of the people of Gibraltar.

So long as the Islanders want to remain the British the UK will not negotiate, its not arrogant or feeble its a fact. If we negotiated with Argentina without the islanders consent the UK would be taken to court by the islanders and the European Court of Human Rights would find the UK guilty of Human Rights abuses against the islanders. As under British Law and European Treaty the Falkland Islands are part of the European Union, the same with the Gibraltar.

My only point was that putting your people into a territory with a disputed claims and then claiming that you won't negotiate as long as your people want to stay with you is a pretty lame way to argue it. It stops them from getting into a legitimate discussion about the original claims to the island.

And they(the people) could take you to court, but they would lose.

An invasion in 1833 shouldn't have bearing on the rights of the people living there now. It's not their fault that they're there, the same way it's not the current British Governements fault that we hold the islands for reasons the Argentines see as illegal. Things were very different in 1800, putting people on lands WAS how you claimed it, and the capture of land and territory was commonplace. It's not like we dropped them off yesterday, which is how you seem to be seeing it. The Falklanders are just that - Falklanders, who are British, not British people living on the Falklands.

It's mostly the warmongering part that gets on my nerves.

Warmongering is an unfair label. We put our stance on diplomacy and Argentina continues to not accept it. The next logical step for any country that can't get what it wants through peaceful means (other than dropping the whole issue) is to fight over it. And as I said before, Argentina has done it before, so forgive the British for not letting the idea drop. Britain doesn't want a war, but the British public opinion is to respond to an unprovoked military action with force And no, sending warships of any type to a British territory is not a provoking military action - routine assignment or not, it's good sense giving the tensions around the higher levels of the Argentine Government.

[Voodoomaster]

Finally, no idea what was going on with my posting earlier. I blame Chrome stupid browser, i miss firefox on work laptop

Just to agree with the above post the British Colony was established earlier than 1833, it was only after the raid by the USS lexington that a military base was established. And in terms of military base, its not a base by UK standards more an airstrip/outpost.

If you wanted the UK could turn the falklands into a base more akin to Okinawa with a Carrier Battle Group, 40 odd Fighter Aircraft and 10,000 odd military troops.