Falklands War part 2?

[RabidMongoose]

Technically neither did the US or Europe. But with this statement you have torpedoed your arguments. With "no native population", the one with the biggest stick wins.

Maybe the one with the biggest stick wins for now, but that doesn't mean it's the one that has the most legitimate and just position.

 

[Sephire]

I just finished watching the Falkland Island war. Its very mind boggling on why the invaders (Argentina) thinks that they can win it at all. The British sent a token force and was promptly kicked out. They should have decimated the whole Argentinian military or at least their navy to send a message.

 

[WelshBloke]

Maybe the one with the biggest stick wins for now, but that doesn't mean it's the one that has the most legitimate and just position.

You keep dismissing all Argentina's claims though.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
the Malvinas have no native population.

Correct.

While you continually express opposition to "colonialism", all you are doing here is arguing that Argentina, which among all parties has the weakest claim, should be allowed to colonize the Falklands. Why Spanish colonist descendants should be able to kick out English colonist descendants has gone unexplained.

England has the first legal claim to the islands, I see no one disputing that in anything I've read.

And "Finders Keepers" has been the legitimate manner of claiming land since the dawn of history. If we're to believe science early mankind migrated out of sub-Saharan Africa and spent thousands of years claiming land on the basis of "finders keepers" as they moved to other continents.

England had the Falklands before Argentina was a country. Accordingly, under your apparent rule of proximity, Argentina belongs to England. England was the first country to claim the unoccupied territory, and Argentina is closest to the English territory, so therefore England gets Argentina. Not the other way around, unless you consider that the bigger party wins. In which case, England still wins.

Had the Falklanders claimed independence years ago we would not be seeing this situation. However, the Falklanders wisely, IMO, decided against that. The islands are too small, too remote and too poor to survive as an independent nation. To keep their affiliation with England is natural, much like other islands in the Atlantic still retain their affiliation European countries (e.g., Holland, France, and the UK).

Given their lack of economic value, Argentina's only logical reason for pursuing the Falklands would be as a forward military base. However, I am unaware of any naval assault ever happening from that direction making the Falklands useful. Nor is anyone claiming any risk of that. Thus, it appears the Argentine claim is based upon some sense of pride. 'Vanity' or pride is the worst possible justification brought forward yet for awarding ownership of land and the expulsion of thousands of people whose heritage there goes back many generations.

And I see no basis for discussion between England and Argentina. What can possibly said?

Argentina: "Hi, we would like the islands. Can we have them?"

England: "No".

(Meeting now ends.)

Fern

 

[RabidMongoose]

Correct.

While you continually express opposition to "colonialism", all you are doing here is arguing that Argentina, which among all parties has the weakest claim, should be allowed to colonize the Falklands. Why Spanish colonist descendants should be able to kick out English colonist descendants has gone unexplained.

Actually, Argentina has the strongest claim, but of course this is simply a matter of opinion.

Moreover, I'm not saying that the UK colonist descendants need to be kicked out. They can remain and obtain dual Argentinian/British citizenship.

England has the first legal claim to the islands, I see no one disputing that in anything I've read.

And "Finders Keepers" has been the legitimate manner of claiming land since the dawn of history. If we're to believe science early mankind migrated out of sub-Saharan Africa and spent thousands of years claiming land on the basis of "finders keepers" as they moved to other continents.

The UK does not have the first legal claim. In fact, the French were the first to establish a settlement in the Malvinas, the Spanish acquired the French settlement, and the British came in the middle. Argentina inherits from the Spanish.

England had the Falklands before Argentina was a country. Accordingly, under your apparent rule of proximity, Argentina belongs to England. England was the first country to claim the unoccupied territory, and Argentina is closest to the English territory, so therefore England gets Argentina. Not the other way around, unless you consider that the bigger party wins. In which case, England still wins.

The problem is that the UK's claim is illegitimate. Argentina's claims are supported through legitimate claims if we want to go through colonialist routes. However, I don't see why anyone should promote colonialist activity, but Argentina's claims are obviously far superior to the UK's if we ignore colonialist activity.

 

[Fern]

-snip-

The UK does not have the first legal claim.

Check the links again.

England has a "de jure" (legal claim) dating back to 1690. It is the first claim in the articles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute

The other subsequent claims are "de facto". Those are the various settlements.

Fern

 

[RabidMongoose]

Check the links again.

England has a "de jure" (legal claim) dating back to 1690. It is the first claim in the articles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute

The other subsequent claims are "de facto". Those are the various settlements.

Fern

Some believe that the UK has the first discovery by European powers (there is obviously native population discovery before Europeans and that obviously favors Argentina today and other claims by the Spanish and french of discovery), but they did not have the first possession of the Malvinas. That is through the French which was acquired by the Spanish and then to the Argentinians. The British are most likely the first to make landing, but that's about it.

Simple discovery (apparently only applicable to a European power) does not give you possession rights. France->Spain->Argentina were the first to possess and own the Malvinas. That is fact.

However, although this obviously favors Argentina, I don't consider such colonialist activities to be legitimate today.

 

[CanOWorms]

It seems that some are suspecting Argentina will gain more international support due to their peaceful stance vs. the UK's militarization of the South Atlantic.

more international support for Argentina after 'militarization' claim?

The Argentinians seem to be quite politically savvy, having already gotten much of Latin America and the United States on their side.

 

[WelshBloke]

It seems that some are suspecting Argentina will gain more international support due to their peaceful stance vs. the UK's militarization of the South Atlantic.

more international support for Argentina after 'militarization' claim?

The Argentinians seem to be quite politically savvy, having already gotten much of Latin America and the United States on their side.

I think that you had better just get used to the fact that the UK is not going to abandon the Falkland islanders.

 

[CanOWorms]

I think that you had better just get used to the fact that the UK is not going to abandon the Falkland islanders.

I think they may abandon them as they further decline in prominence and get replaced on the world stage by the emerging powers.

However, lately I've been advocating a co-sovereignty approach, which does not require abandonment.

 

[WelshBloke]

I think they may abandon them as they further decline in prominence and get replaced on the world stage by the emerging powers.

However, lately I've been advocating a co-sovereignty approach, which does not require abandonment.

Not going to happen.

 

[Veliko]

Some believe that the UK has the first discovery by European powers (there is obviously native population discovery before Europeans and that obviously favors Argentina today and other claims by the Spanish and french of discovery)

What native population discovery are you talking about? Who discovered the Falklands before the British did?

but they did not have the first possession of the Malvinas. That is through the French which was acquired by the Spanish and then to the Argentinians. The British are most likely the first to make landing, but that's about it.

Simple discovery (apparently only applicable to a European power) does not give you possession rights. France->Spain->Argentina were the first to possess and own the Malvinas. That is fact.

So what does give possession rights?

The British had a colony there before Argentina even existed so your 'fact' is not a fact at all but a complete fabrication.

 

[ichy]

I just finished watching the Falkland Island war. Its very mind boggling on why the invaders (Argentina) thinks that they can win it at all. The British sent a token force and was promptly kicked out. They should have decimated the whole Argentinian military or at least their navy to send a message.

Actually the Falklands War was a very close run thing. The UK did not send a token force in 1982, they sent almost everything that the Royal Navy could deploy. They were also incredibly lucky that the Argentinians had only a few Exocet missiles and that the fuses they used on their bombs sucked ass. A number of RN warships were hit by bombs which failed to explode, a simple change in fusing could've cost the British several warships and hundreds of lives.

Obviously the Falkands rightfully belong to the UK but if push comes to shove they don't have much of an ability to project power anymore. The UK has made the decision that they are not willing to spend the money to be a global military power. Thankfully the Argentine Navy and Air Force are in laughable shape, but who knows how things will be ten or twenty years down the road.

 

[CanOWorms]

Actually the Falklands War was a very close run thing. The UK did not send a token force in 1982, they sent almost everything that the Royal Navy could deploy. They were also incredibly lucky that the Argentinians had only a few Exocet missiles and that the fuses they used on their bombs sucked ass. A number of RN warships were hit by bombs which failed to explode, a simple change in fusing could've cost the British several warships and hundreds of lives.

Obviously the Falkands rightfully belong to the UK but if push comes to shove they don't have much of an ability to project power anymore. The UK has made the decision that they are not willing to spend the money to be a global military power. Thankfully the Argentine Navy and Air Force are in laughable shape, but who knows how things will be ten or twenty years down the road.

I disagree that the Malvinas rightfully belong to the UK. However, someone posted that the UK power to project should be expected to increase as they will have 2 carriers up in 10 or so years. Whether it's enough, and how Argentina's capabilities will increase, I'm not sure about.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
However, lately I've been advocating a co-sovereignty approach, which does not require abandonment.

Who in their right minds would want to live under "co-sovereignty"?

FFS, living under the rules of just one government is bad enough, but 2? H3ll no!

Then, whenever those govts had a disagreement you'd the 'ball' they'd kick back-n-forth.

Sounds like a terrible idea to me.

Fern

 

[WelshBloke]

I disagree that the Malvinas rightfully belong to the UK. ...

Ok , what are you going to do about it?

 

[monovillage]

The reality is that the U.K. own the Falklands, that the Jews own Israel, that the Americans own the U.S.. You can whine and cry and whimper all you want, but if you don't have the balls or the armies to move them out you may as well just go piss up a rope.

 

[CanOWorms]

Who in their right minds would want to live under "co-sovereignty"?

FFS, living under the rules of just one government is bad enough, but 2? H3ll no!

Then, whenever those govts had a disagreement you'd the 'ball' they'd kick back-n-forth.

Sounds like a terrible idea to me.

Fern

There may be many solutions to the situation your'e referring to. For example, some of the land may be administered by the UK, other parts by Argentina. Or an international board can oversee both at the same time. Or people can individually choose which one they wish to submit to. Perhaps for 10 years Argentina can administer it, then it switches to the UK, and so forth. They can create a new and novel legal system.

This is why we need bilateral talks on sovereignty between Argentina and the UK.

 

[CanOWorms]

Ok , what are you going to do about it?

The same thing as you.

 

[CanOWorms]

The reality is that the U.K. own the Falklands, that the Jews own Israel, that the Americans own the U.S.. You can whine and cry and whimper all you want, but if you don't have the balls or the armies to move them out you may as well just go piss up a rope.

That may ultimately be the position that the UK is in. I suspect the sovereignty over many of their overseas colonial possession to be questioned, particularly by the emerging powers who will displace the UK. The UK cannot realistically protect all of these far-flung colonies so far away from home. The UK is already concerned about an economic embargo against the Malvinas, making them economically unsustainable.

 

[monovillage]

That may ultimately be the position that the UK is in. I suspect the sovereignty over many of their overseas colonial possession to be questioned, particularly by the emerging powers who will displace the UK. The UK cannot realistically protect all of these far-flung colonies so far away from home. The UK is already concerned about an economic embargo against the Malvinas, making them economically unsustainable.

So much for your "no balls" argument. Don't get splashed.

 

[WelshBloke]

The same thing as you.

I'm happy with the status quo though, your the one that wants change.

 

[CanOWorms]

I'm happy with the status quo though, your the one that wants change.

So?

 

[Fern]

There may be many solutions to the situation your'e referring to. For example, some of the land may be administered by the UK, other parts by Argentina. Or an international board can oversee both at the same time. Or people can individually choose which one they wish to submit to. Perhaps for 10 years Argentina can administer it, then it switches to the UK, and so forth. They can create a new and novel legal system.

This is why we need bilateral talks on sovereignty between Argentina and the UK.

I highly doubt Argentina is after the Falklands because they want to oversee a few thousands people out on a desolate island hundreds of miles from their shore.

If Argentina wants a forward navy base for their national security and I was England I'd be willing to consider that. I'd consider renting them a base, like we rent GITMO from the Cubans.

If it's about any oil deposits I understand England has already offered to share.

So far, I'm not understanding Argentina's stance or wants. If they want England to just give them the islands that's unreasonable.

Fern

 

[WelshBloke]

So?

So not even offering a decent argument for your case is not going to get you what you want.

I, however, already have what I want.