• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Falklands War part 2?

Page 14 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
The Argentinians don't have a legitimate claim to the islands. The only aspect they have on their side is how close they are - but even then the islands aren't actually close to Argentina.

France is about 30 miles away from the UK yet the UK doesn't get to make a claim on it.
 
I am British, so Kirchner bring it on! Of female world leaders, she perhaps is one of the most attractive (almost in MILF territory 😱) but her brains don't match her looks.

I don't think they've ever had a legitmate claim on the islands, and the people living there want to remain British. We still are one of the leading military powers in the world, so as said bring in it. We most likely will decimate their armed forces into the Stone Age, but I don't care, human stupidity is boundless. 😛
 
pcgeek11 said:
Nope. Not going to happen.
Click to expand...

Why not? Why not also give Puerto Rico to the Dominican Republic? Why doesn't Denmark give Greenland to Canada?

The fact is that Argentina has never developed a solid claim to the islands, and simply saying "it's closer to us!" doesn't cut it. I don't think there is a basis in international law for saying "xyz land is closer to us, then it is ours by right".

Another thing, most in the forum don't realise that several European countries still have offshoots of past global colonial empires:

- France has Guiana, Reunion, and the Kergulen Islands
- The Netherlands has Aruba (should Chavez invade? it's on his doorstep after all!!)

Are France and the Netherlands "bad" for this?
 
CanOWorms said:
I don't think that would be viewed favorably by the international community. Moreover, while this is definitely a far flung area in respect to the UK, it is not a revolt.

I also question if the UK military even has the capabilities to transfer large quantities of chemical weapons thousands of miles. They are a shell of their former selves.
Click to expand...

Says the country who in a decade or so may be overtaken economically by China. the US is in relative decline, despite being top dog.

What is the basis per international law of Argentina's claim? You seem to be dismissing questions/arguments that don't meld with your own agenda. Can Canada place troops in Maine, and claim it as another Canadian province? or is international law selectively applied?
 
mammador said:
Says the country who in a decade or so may be overtaken economically by China. the US is in relative decline, despite being top dog.

What is the basis per international law of Argentina's claim? You seem to be dismissing questions/arguments that don't meld with your own agenda. Can Canada place troops in Maine, and claim it as another Canadian province? or is international law selectively applied?
Click to expand...

Of course they can, until Maine's boy scouts kick some Canadian ass and send them home.

International Law is only as effective as the military that's upholding it.
 
But invading Maine in itself wouldn't make Canada's claim legitimate, would it? To use an analogy, your neighbour cannot claim your back yard as his because he feels like it or says so. It's a similar principle in the case of the Falklands, Argentina cannot use any firm basis for their claim.
 
mammador said:
But invading Maine in itself wouldn't make Canada's claim legitimate, would it? To use an analogy, your neighbour cannot claim your back yard as his because he feels like it or says so. It's a similar principle in the case of the Falklands, Argentina cannot use any firm basis for their claim.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't and Argentina's claim on the Falklands is totally bogus. Argentina has no valid claim on the Falklands and never did. The one time they tried to prove a claim they got their asses kicked by Thatcher and went whimpering home like puppies.
 
mammador said:
Why not? Why not also give Puerto Rico to the Dominican Republic? Why doesn't Denmark give Greenland to Canada?
Click to expand...



lol greenland, the "country" with the oddest flag on the planet.

Flag_of_Greenland.svg
 
mammador said:
Says the country who in a decade or so may be overtaken economically by China. the US is in relative decline, despite being top dog.
Click to expand...

That's wholly irrelevant to this discussion. Please stay on topic.

What is the basis per international law of Argentina's claim? You seem to be dismissing questions/arguments that don't meld with your own agenda. Can Canada place troops in Maine, and claim it as another Canadian province? or is international law selectively applied?
Click to expand...

Argentina is demanding bilateral talks on sovereignty, which is what the United Nations and the international community has asked for as well. They are following international law. It's the UK who are flaunting it, as usual. Also, their Empire is not only against international law, but moral law.

These types of issues are likely to occur again. It's a natural part of dismantling a horrid Empire. The situations will be different with their own unique circumstances, but the UK should be losing overseas territories, and it will happen regardless of whether they wish to retain a colony thousands of miles away. I can see issues coming up with Diego Garcia and other territories.

Canada can do whatever they wish. The US and Canada also had sovereignty issues in the 1960s and 1970s over the Gulf of Maine and it was decided by an international setup. They still have sovereignty issues over some waters, but both have decided to maintain an embargo on offshore drilling in the area.
 
CanOWorms said:
That's wholly irrelevant to this discussion. Please stay on topic.



Argentina is demanding bilateral talks on sovereignty, which is what the United Nations and the international community has asked for as well. They are following international law. It's the UK who are flaunting it, as usual. Also, their Empire is not only against international law, but moral law.

These types of issues are likely to occur again. It's a natural part of dismantling a horrid Empire. The situations will be different with their own unique circumstances, but the UK should be losing overseas territories, and it will happen regardless of whether they wish to retain a colony thousands of miles away. I can see issues coming up with Diego Garcia and other territories.

Canada can do whatever they wish. The US and Canada also had sovereignty issues in the 1960s and 1970s over the Gulf of Maine and it was decided by an international setup. They still have sovereignty issues over some waters, but both have decided to maintain an embargo on offshore drilling in the area.
Click to expand...

He asked what are Argentina's claims on the Falklands, you dance and sing and do everything but answer a simple question. Why should the U.K. go to bilateral talks if Argentina won't even make a claim?
 
mammador said:
I am British, so Kirchner bring it on! Of female world leaders, she perhaps is one of the most attractive (almost in MILF territory 😱) but her brains don't match her looks.

I don't think they've ever had a legitmate claim on the islands, and the people living there want to remain British. We still are one of the leading military powers in the world, so as said bring in it. We most likely will decimate their armed forces into the Stone Age, but I don't care, human stupidity is boundless. 😛
Click to expand...

After the first Falkland Island wars, the Argentinians played y'all in soccer (football). Maradona got his "revenge" by cheating with his "hand of God". Argentina is full of fail.
 
mammador said:
I am British, so Kirchner bring it on! Of female world leaders, she perhaps is one of the most attractive (almost in MILF territory 😱) but her brains don't match her looks.

I don't think they've ever had a legitmate claim on the islands, and the people living there want to remain British. We still are one of the leading military powers in the world, so as said bring in it. We most likely will decimate their armed forces into the Stone Age, but I don't care, human stupidity is boundless. 😛
Click to expand...

Bring what on? The Argentinians are peaceful and are seeking a peaceful resolution. It's the UK who are being aggressive and militarizing the South Atlantic.
 
RabidMongoose said:
Bring what on? The Argentinians are peaceful and are seeking a peaceful resolution. It's the UK who are being aggressive and militarizing the South Atlantic.
Click to expand...

The Argentinians were sabre rattling and they also have embargoed any ships to/from the Falklands. Makes it more difficult to get supplies. An extra 2000+km mile haul for any ship to get to Brazil
 
Last edited:
Chapter 1, Article 1, part 2 states that purpose of the UN Charter is: "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."[13]
Article 1 in both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)[14] and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).[15] Both read: "All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development."
The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 15 states that everyone has the right to a nationality and that no one should be arbitrarily deprived of a nationality or denied the right to change nationality.

The British government have stated that the majority of the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands wish to remain British and therefore the transfer of sovereignty to Argentina would be counter to their right to self-determine

-That the British were the first to claim the islands in 1690 and have never renounced that claim.
-That the islands have been continuously and peacefully occupied by the UK since 1833, with the exception of "2 months of illegal occupation" by Argentina.
-That Argentina's attempts to colonise the islands in 1820–33 were "sporadic and ineffectual".
-That the islands had no indigenous or settled population before British settlement.
-That in an Argentine-inspired poll in 1994, 87% of the island's population rejected any form of discussion of sovereignty under any circumstances.[55]
 
RabidMongoose said:
The issue of the ownership of the Malvinas, of course. Are you serious?
Click to expand...

It doesn't need resolving and things are perfectly peaceful as they are.

There are British people living there. They want to remain under British rule. The islands belong to Britain.

The Argentinians don't have a legitimate claim to them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top