Falklands

[Gonzalez]

@Muskeato:

The first widely accepted sighting of the islands was by a Dutchman (Sebald de Weert). The first undisputed landing on the island was by an Englishman (John Strong). The British claim is/was based upon this landing, I think.

They were sighted first in 1520, 1535 and 1540 by spanish. Historical documents that prove it: Letter of Reinel, letter of Ribero and "Islario de Santa Cruz" (A map showing the islands made before any british sighted them).

John Strong didn't landed, just navigated the San Carlos canal. For that matter Alonso de Carmargo navigated between the islands first.

Britain rejects a Spanish interpretation of the Treaty of Utrecht (That the Treaty granted Spain sovereignty).

There are plenty of juridical evidence that britain recognized the islands as spanish and that any activity on that area by them was illegal, and that then later britain argued they did not recognized as valid. An example of this is Britain not recognizing the papal bull of 1493, but it was because of the bull of 1115 that britain obtained Ireland thus showing they recognized the authority of the pope. They make agreements and later say they don't "recognize" their validity or that they "interpret" them different.

The French established a colony in 1764. In 1766 the Spanish told them to leave and because the nations were friendly they did, and as far as I know relinquished any claim.

They were evicted because it was sovereign spanish territory they were occupying illegally. They agreed to leave because the nations were friendly and France recognized spanish sovereignty over them, don't forget that.

A British fort was established in 1765/6, and as far as I can tell a colony at Port Egmont. The Spanish forcibly evicted the British, but to avoid war were allowed to return. Neither side relinquished their claim.

A fort, not a colony, they were evicted because they were infringing spanish sovereignty and they knew it. Spain returned only Port Egmont located in a small island, they never returned the islands, just the fort.

In 1776, the British leave due to financial constraints, but leave a plaque proclaiming their sovereignty. The Spanish leave in 1811, also leaving a plaque.

They left because they made an agreement with Spain that they would. Part of that avoiding a war thing (we refuse to being evicted but we'll leave later anyway so cut us some slack sort of thing).

Vernet requested permission from the British to build his settlement in the 1820's. This seems to imply that he at least thought that the issue of sovereignty was far from settled.

Regardless of what doubts he might have had at first it was finally Argentina who granted him permission (Argentina officially took possession of the islands in 1820 prior to Vernet stablishing, having claimed sovereignty over them since 1810) and invested official authority on him as governor.

1833, Britain forcibly asserts sovereignty over the islands. Apparently contemporary sources indicate that Argentine colonists were encouraged to stay. I can't be more specific than that I'm afraid.

That thing about "letting" or "encouraging" some of the population to stay is just to make it look like the population was given some sort of "choice" and try to weaken the argentine argument that the islands were taken by force. But removing all legal argentine authorities and telling the population "subdue to british authority or leave" is not really much of a choice, it's still an unprovoked act of aggression against a friendly country.

That series of events hardly indicates a strong Argentinian claim. I'm not sure you fully understand third-party mediation. The third-party is supposed to analyse and respect both parties points. I don't see how mediation (especially by the ICJ) would take any power away from an argument.

It takes power away from an argument because arbitration negates all argument between the parties, you have to relinquish all power of decision to a third party, it is not a negotiation at all. A more equitative level of negotiation is the one UN resolutions dictaminated should take place and that the UK keeps ignoring. At the time the ICJ had just been created and Argentina accepting a arbitration could have been seen as accepting that argentine sovereignty over the islands was in doubt. In any case I fail to see how the argentine government in the 40's refusing a mediation should be a reason for the UK to refuse negotiations today or that it negates the argentine claim in any way.

@Pixote:

Who cares about The Falklands

You don't have to care about the Malvinas at all, but if you're trying to convince me not to care then try again.

It would be better if 1 million Argentinians became British citizens and then moved there...take over quietly.

The de facto local government who serves the interests of private companies in the islands is very careful not to let that happen, very strongly restricting access by argentines to the islands and keeping the islanders from having much contact with the continent, if any at all.

 

[.Pixote.]

@Muskeato:

The first widely accepted sighting of the islands was by a Dutchman (Sebald de Weert). The first undisputed landing on the island was by an Englishman (John Strong). The British claim is/was based upon this landing, I think.

They were sighted first in 1520, 1535 and 1540 by spanish. Historical documents that prove it: Letter of Reinel, letter of Ribero and "Islario de Santa Cruz" (A map showing the islands made before any british sighted them).

Let the Dutch or Spanish worry about the islands then, the only reason Argentina cares is because they are 500km off the coast of Argentina. No one lived there in 1520, except some happy seals and penguins.

Unfortunately with these sort of islands it's first come - first served, or until some battle decides their fate, which has happened many times throughout history. The Spanish lost many colonies to America by the fact that lost a war to those honkies in the Caribbean in 1898.

The Australian continent was spotted by the Dutch and French before the British ever colonized it - so should Australia be a Dutch colony? Maybe, but the Gods decided differently and the people there now speak English, go figure.

There are dozens of similar examples around the world, sadly it was the guy with the biggest stick at the time that decided the fate of a particular place, at least the Falklands didn't have a local population to complicate the situation (the English would have probably just poisoned them)...

 

[Sander]

Anyone using 500-year-old history to establish a claim of legitimacy on a piece of land is abusing history for his own purposes. Ownership and international situations are fluid and shift constantly. "We were there first" is not a realistic measure of who "should" own a piece of land.

 

[Crni Vuk]

except when you're jewish of course

 

[Gonzalez]

Anyone using 500-year-old history to establish a claim of legitimacy on a piece of land is abusing history for his own purposes. Ownership and international situations are fluid and shift constantly. "We were there first" is not a realistic measure of who "should" own a piece of land.

It is the british as well as the argentines who used historical arguments from the very beginning to justify their claim, and they were argentine for the last time only 30 years ago, so the history is pretty much alive in the sense we never gave up our claim. Is not like the british took them 200 years ago and then we just remembered today that we wanted them. We tried every pacific mean to get them back for 149 years since the moment the british invaded them, and after that even military means.

And if not legal, geographical, and historic reasons to make pacifical claims are valid because a country takes something by force, keeps it by force and answers force with force is the only one who deserves to have something then what you are saying is that only the strongest deserves to have the land. Why then the UN should not exist as it is useless in a world where only force is valid for determining who owns what.

Nice way of simply throwing years of international law, developed as the consequence of the death of millions, out the window. I mean specially since it's today ratified UN resolutions that support our claim and all. 500 year of history are just the historical and legal bases, not our entire reason of why they should be ours.

 

[Sander]

It is the british as well as the argentines who used historical arguments from the very beginning to justify their claim

Yes, and they're both equally retarded. That's not how international politics actually work. Referring to past history is nothing more than meaningless propaganda to make their own people feel good about these claims. On both sides.

And if not legal, geographical, and historic reasons to make pacifical claims are valid because a country takes something by force, keeps it by force and answers force with force is the only one who deserves to have something then what you are saying is that only the strongest deserves to have the land.

It's not about 'deserve'. No country 'deserves' a bit of land because they saw it first, or because 400 years ago some people they were affiliated with lived on it, or because a treaty was signed 300 years ago. Those treaties get broken and ignored constantly, and they're only brought up when one side thinks it can profit from it. They're meaningless.

There is no pretty solution here, or in any dispute of land. In the end, in reality, it boils down to power and the ability to wield it, no more than that. That's international politics.

Now, if you want to talk about what should morally and ethically happen, then that's a lot simpler: hold a referendum among the inhabitants of the land, let them decide, and have the UN enforce that, as they've done in the past. And to appease anyone who isn't happy with the result, help them move to the other country.

 

[Gonzalez]

It's not about 'deserve'. No country 'deserves' a bit of land because they saw it first, or because 400 years ago some people they were affiliated with lived on it, or because a treaty was signed 300 years ago. Those treaties get broken and ignored constantly, and they're only brought up when one side thinks it can profit from it. They're meaningless.

There is no pretty solution here, or in any dispute of land. In the end, in reality, it boils down to power and the ability to wield it, no more than that. That's international politics.

Now, if you want to talk about what should morally and ethically happen, then that's a lot simpler: hold a referendum among the inhabitants of the land, let them decide, and have the UN enforce that, as they've done in the past. And to appease anyone who isn't happy with the result, help them move to the other country.

You are taking parts of the argument and analyzing them separately and not as a whole. The treaties and all that are evidence that supports what the british say it isn't so. It's the evidence required to make the claim. The claim is that they were legally ours, we were effectively occupying them, and during peacetime, without provocation, the british seized them by force. We protested this since day one.

Then what we are saying (and have been saying since) is that they are legally sovereign argentine territory that is illegally occupied by the british and that they should be returned to us. Not only because of historical factors but because of modern to date decolonization laws sanctioned by the UN. The UN has also dictaminated that the inhabitants do not get to decide who owns the islands, only that they right to stay living there and they way of life should be respected.

All these are today UN voted resolutions. The occasional argument between brits and argies about the history is not what goes on between the argentine and bitish government. The british government has already gave up on any historical claims, they now only claim that the people living there (british citizens represented by the british government and not a third party in this matter in any way) should decide who the islands belong to. The argentine govt actually have the UN resolutions on their side that say that the islands are part of the decolonization process the UK should undertake and that british claims not to do so under the excuse that the whole archipielago including thousands of square miles of sea territories around the islands, including all it's resources, should be british because of what 2000 people living in a town in one of the islands decide has been ruled non applicable by the UN.

So in this context I think the argentine argument is stronger.

 

[Crni Vuk]

well isn't the population of the falklands happy being british? Not that I really know enough about the case. But it seems like the population there is more british then anything else. Or at least they show them here always that way.

 

[Sander]

You are taking parts of the argument and analyzing them separately and not as a whole.

Yes. I'm not evaluating the merits of either claim, here. I wasn't making statements on who 'deserves' (which is an asinine concept in international politics) to own the Falklands, or who has the stronger claim. I was making the point that pointing to history is self-serving and meaningless. You can complain about 'power' being the only other denominator, but how do you think those historic realities came about in the first place if not through power?

See: I don't give a shit whose argument is stronger. I couldn't care less who owns those islands. For all I care, New Zealand runs off with them.

The only thing I do care about, is that the people who live on those islands get to live where and under whose jurisdiction they want to live. Which is why morally, I'd resolve conflicts like these with local referenda.

 

[Gonzalez]

well isn't the population of the falklands happy being british? Not that I really know enough about the case. But it seems like the population there is more british then anything else. Or at least they show them here always that way.

A few things:

If no referendum is made all you have is this "general impression" we all have. And the british government is not interested in a referendum because it's not interested in respecting these people's wishes as they claim. They only use them as excuse to occupy an entire group of islands including lots of sea territories for their resources. Why don't you ask them what they did to the local native population of island Diego Garcia when they had to rent it to the US as a military base back in the 60's.

The islands do not have a local democratic government, they have representation in the local council, that's all, but supreme government is exersiced by a de facto governor appointed by the UK. So when we speak of the local government and the UK government we are talking about the same thing. So far all the claims that the people there wish to remain british come from the local islands government.

If they wished independence and a government of their own is one thing, but if they wish things to remain the way they are then they must let the UK government decide their fate and accept they have no say about it. They can neither be used as an excuse by the UK not to return the islands.

And if you disagree with all I say I already posted the UN has ruled the local population does not get to decide who the islands should belong to.

 

[.Pixote.]

Gonzalez - just let it go...the islanders won't agree to joining Argentina, it's just the way things turned out. The alternative is another stupid war, and I don't think anyone wants that.

If you think the Falkland Islands are a pain, think about the French in regards to Jersey Island, that's within eye sight of the French shores.

Argentina = 2,791,810 km2

Great Britain = 229,848 km2

See you're already winning. Or is this debate about something else, because if anyone wants to fight for a claim over the Falklands then it should be the Spanish government, actually the Spanish could lay claim to Argentina, they did colonize the place after all, but it isn't going to happen because these things have been settled under the framework of international law years ago. The British have these odd little islands all over the planet, the Falklands aren't unusual. They had good ships in those days...

[spoiler:c4f9e5e93f]

[/spoiler:c4f9e5e93f]

 

[Gonzalez]

actually the Spanish could lay claim to Argentina

See, this is why you'll never get it. You don't know the first thing about argentine history and pretend to convince me that Argetina should let go of the claim.

If anything you are making me want to reinforce the claim even more. If we agree that Argentina exists and it was comprised of the territories of the "Virreinato del Rio de la Plata" then we agree Malvinas belong to Argentina as an integral part of their territory.

If, however, you are implying that Argentina should not exist and we should go back to the time of colonial empires and become a spanish colony then we have nothing else to talk about. Seriously, we don't.

 

[Crni Vuk]

See, this is why you'll never get it. You don't know the first thing about argentine history and pretend to convince me that Argetina should let go of the claim.

yeah. People don't get it. Simply because they have to be argentinian.

Now you are making a fool out of your self. And I don't mean that as insult.

Now I don't claim to know much about Argentine or the Falklands. But I know (as Serbian) that the world is not always fair. That sometimes things happen that way. You can be sure that I am not happy about the situation in Kosovo.

But the important question here is. What are the alternatives?

Again. Do you really think any claim by Argentine particularly after the lost the conflict in the past will hold any water today? That is simply unrealistic. At least for the time B. And ask your self if this rock or island is really worth again another conflict or aggression or what ever else. I have the feeling this thing is going in a wrong direction. I mean would you get a rifle conquering the island if that is the only way to get it back for your "homeland"? How do they say. Be careful what you wish for.

 

[Gonzalez]

First off, let me assure you that there is plenty of people here willing to take a rifle and fight to the death for them. Including myself.

Second, the islands are very important as a geographical strategic position and because of their natural resources, as well as for the historical reasons.

Why else do you think the british keep 1000 troops, last generation air superiority fighters as well as a small fleet including last generation destroyers and nuclear submarines? For those two reasons.

Also it's not unrealistic at all, considering that we have UN resolutions in our side and that more and more countries are supporting the argentine claim. Even the US has already declared it's a bilateral conflict between two nations (again, islanders not included as a third party) and that Argentina and the UK should negotiate, something the UK refuses to do.

And if you like to give up whenever you don't like the odds that's fine, but that's not the way I roll. The moment you give up is the moment you lost.

Maybe it won't even get to happen in my lifetime, but unless they return the islands they're just going to be delaying the problem, not solve it. No amount of time will ever make those islands any more theirs, so they better be prepared to keep spending money on those 1000 troops plus air support and a small fleet to "protect" the caprice of those islanders. And they will, but not because of the islanders, like I said if it's worth to have so many troops is because the islanders are an excuse and the islands hold an importance that you fail to see.

So yeah, you may call me nationalist or whatever you want, but I respect the brits more for at least being as committed as I am, even if we are on different sides of the argument.

 

[zegh8578]

its an interesting point OP brings up, and i have discussed it often before: the "shelflife" of a territorial claim.

for example, the quagmire of the israel/palestine conflict - they both claim a heritage to that land - and they are both correct.
the question becomes "who was there first" (and in reality, such a question is almost abstract).

people, in general, have a poor understanding of "who was there first", as they imagine movements as very linear:
first there wasnt a damn soul in a country.
then the finns or whatever arrived.
in reality, it isnt that simple at all.

apart from that, i find the falklands war one of the most interesting of our modern conflicts, due to the location, beligerents, course of action, all of it. its an intriguing little war

 

[Muskeato]

They were sighted first in 1520, 1535 and 1540 by spanish. Historical documents that prove it: Letter of Reinel, letter of Ribero and "Islario de Santa Cruz" (A map showing the islands made before any british sighted them).

"Widely accepted". There were plenty of 'possible' sightings and possible landings. The one by Weert is the most widely accepted as being the first proven sighting.

There are plenty of juridical evidence that britain recognized the islands as spanish and that any activity on that area by them was illegal, and that then later britain argued they did not recognized as valid. An example of this is Britain not recognizing the papal bull of 1493, but it was because of the bull of 1115 that britain obtained Ireland thus showing they recognized the authority of the pope. They make agreements and later say they don't "recognize" their validity or that they "interpret" them different.

I'm not sure why an Angevin King accepting a Bull nearly 400 years earlier means that the English should automatically recognise a separate Bull that they never signed. Since then, England/Britain clearly hasn't recognised the authority of the Pope anyway.

They were evicted because it was sovereign spanish territory they were occupying illegally. They agreed to leave because the nations were friendly and France recognized spanish sovereignty over them, don't forget that.

Because the Spanish thought it was their sovereign territory. The matter was clearly disputed at this point.

A fort, not a colony, they were evicted because they were infringing spanish sovereignty and they knew it. Spain returned only Port Egmont located in a small island, they never returned the islands, just the fort.

How did they know? The English were also claiming the islands. How is this different to what the British did to the Argentinians?

They left because they made an agreement with Spain that they would. Part of that avoiding a war thing (we refuse to being evicted but we'll leave later anyway so cut us some slack sort of thing).

Really? I didn't find anything suggesting that, only that it was unaffordable. Either way, the British maintained their claim.

Regardless of what doubts he might have had at first it was finally Argentina who granted him permission (Argentina officially took possession of the islands in 1820 prior to Vernet stablishing, having claimed sovereignty over them since 1810) and invested official authority on him as governor.

I'm just going to quote someone else from a different forum.
"In October 1820, the Frigate Heroína under the command of American privateer Colonel David Jewett arrived in Puerto Soledad following voyage lasting from March to October 1820 looking to capture Spanish ships as prizes. Most of her crew were incapacitated by scurvy and disease. Jewett also executed six of his crew for mutiny. Ultimately he was unable to find any Spanish prizes but did manage to capture a Portuguese ship named Carlota. As Argentina and Portugal were not at war, Jewett could be considered to have committed piracy. A storm resulted in severe damage to the Heroína and had sunk the prize Carlota forcing Jewett to put into Puerto Soledad for repairs.

Captain Jewett chose to rest and recover in the islands, seeking assistance from the British explorer James Weddell. Weddell reported only 30 seamen and 40 soldiers fit for duty out of a crew of 200, and how Jewett slept with pistols over his head following an attempted mutiny. On 6 November 1820, Jewett raised the flag of the United Provinces of the River Plate (a predecessor of modern-day Argentina) and claimed possession of the islands. Weddell reported the letter he received from Jewett as:

Sir, I have the honor of informing you that I have arrived in this port with a commission from the Supreme Government of the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata to take possession of these islands on behalf of the country to which they belong by Natural Law. While carrying out this mission I want to do so with all the courtesy and respect all friendly nations; one of the objectives of my mission is to prevent the destruction of resources necessary for all ships passing by and forced to cast anchor here, as well as to help them to obtain the necessary supplies, with minimum expenses and inconvenience. Since your presence here is not in competition with these purposes and in the belief that a personal meeting will be fruitful for both of us, I invite you to come aboard, where you'll be welcomed to stay as long as you wish; I would also greatly appreciate your extending this invitation to any other British subject found in the vicinity; I am, respectfully yours. Signed, Jewett, Colonel of the Navy of the United Provinces of South America and commander of the frigate Heroína.

Many modern authors report this letter as the declaration issued by Jewett. Weddell did not believe that Jewett was acting with the interests of the United Provinces of the River Plate in mind, rather Jewett had merely put into the harbour in order to obtain refreshments for his crew, and that the assumption of possession was chiefly intended for the purpose of securing an exclusive claim to the wreck of the French ship Uranie that had foundered at the entrance of Berkeley Sound a few months prior. Weddell left the islands on 20 November 1820 noting that Jewett had not completed repairs to the Heroína.

Finally Jewett seized an American flagged ship named Rampart, committing piracy for a second time. Jewett sent a long report to Buenos Aires dated 1 February 1821 in which he described his journey. He did not, however, make any mention whatsoever of his claim over the Falklands.

He departed from the Falkland Islands in April 1821. In total he had spent no more than six months on the island, entirely at Port Luis. In 1822, Jewett was accused of piracy by a Portuguese court, but by that time he was in Brazil.

News of Jewett's claim over the Falklands was reported first in the Salem Gazette, a Massachusetts news paper and then re-printed in the Times of London. The Spanish newspaper Cadiz then reported the story and it was only when this report reached Buenos Aires, as a foreign news story, was it published in the Buenos Aires Argos on 10 November 1821. More than a year after the event. The Argentine government itself made no announcements. This was probably because Jewett had made no report of his 'acquisition' and so they were completely unaware that it had taken place.

In 1823, the United Provinces of the River Plate granted fishing rights to Jorge Pacheco and Luis Vernet. Travelling to the islands in 1824, the first expedition failed almost as soon as it landed, and Pacheco chose not to continue with the venture. Vernet persisted, but the second attempt, delayed until Winter 1826 by a Brazilian blockade, was also unsuccessful. The expedition intended to exploit the feral cattle on the islands but the boggy conditions meant the Gauchos could not catch cattle in their traditional way. Vernet was by now aware of conflicting British claims to the islands and sought permission from the British consulate before departing for the islands.

In 1828, the United Provinces government granted Vernet all of East Falkland including all its resources, and exempted him from taxation if a colony could be established within three years. He took settlers, including British Captain Matthew Brisbane (who had sailed to the islands earlier with Weddell), and before leaving once again sought permission from the British Consulate in Buenos Aires. The British asked for a report for the British government on the islands, and Vernet asked for British protection should they return.

On 10 June 1829, Vernet was designated as 'civil and military commandant' of the islands (no Governor was ever appointed) and granted a monopoly on seal hunting rights. A protest was lodged by the British Consulate in Buenos Aires. By 1831, the colony was successful enough to be advertising for new colonists, although the Lexington's report suggests that the conditions on the islands were quite miserable. Charles Darwin's visit in 1833 confirmed the squalid conditions in the settlement, although Captain Matthew Brisbane (Vernet's deputy) later claimed that this was the result of the Lexington raid.

In 1831, Vernet attempted to assert his monopoly on seal hunting rights. This led him to capture the American ships Harriet, Superior and Breakwater. As a reprisal, the United States sent Captain Silas Duncan of the USS Lexington to recover the confiscated property. After finding what he considered proof that at least four American fishing ships had been captured, plundered, and even outfitted for war, Duncan took seven prisoners aboard the Lexington and charged them with piracy.

Also taken on board, Duncan reported, "were the whole of the (Falklands') population consisting of about forty persons, with the exception of some 'gauchos', or cowboys who were encamped in the interior." The group, principally German citizens from Buenos Aires, "appeared greatly rejoiced at the opportunity thus presented of removing with their families from a desolate region where the climate is always cold and cheerless and the soil extremely unproductive". However, about 24 people did remain on the island, mainly Gauchos and several Charrua Indians, who continued to trade on Vernet's account.

Measures were taken against the settlement, the log of the Lexington reports destruction of arms and a powder store, while settlers remaining later said that there was great damage to private property. Towards the end of his life, Luis Vernet authorised his sons to claim on his behalf for his losses stemming from the raid. In the case lodged against the US Government for compensation, rejected by the US Government of President Cleveland in 1885, Vernet stated that the settlement was destroyed."

Sorry it's such a long excerpt, but I figured it'd be better in its entirety. If anything, it seems the Argentinian government only took possession when Vernet tried to establish himself in 1823, and it was still several years before he succeeded. Nearly every time Vernet did try to establish himself, he asked for permission from the British before leaving. If anything, Vernet was unaware at first and very much doubtful afterwards.

That thing about "letting" or "encouraging" some of the population to stay is just to make it look like the population was given some sort of "choice" and try to weaken the argentine argument that the islands were taken by force. But removing all legal argentine authorities and telling the population "subdue to british authority or leave" is not really much of a choice, it's still an unprovoked act of aggression against a friendly country.

It's clearly debatable if the presence of the Argentine authorities was legal. The reasons for encouraging the settlers to stay probably had more to do with trying to maintain the colony and any profitability it had.

...Argentina accepting a arbitration could have been seen as accepting that argentine sovereignty over the islands was in doubt.

Britain could say the same today.

In any case I fail to see how the argentine government in the 40's refusing a mediation should be a reason for the UK to refuse negotiations today or that it negates the argentine claim in any way.

I never said it was, but it's unfair to simply states that the UK has always refused negotiations without accounting that Argentina has refused similar arbitration.

If we agree that Argentina exists and it was comprised of the territories of the "Virreinato del Rio de la Plata" then we agree Malvinas belong to Argentina as an integral part of their territory.

Exactly. The British never accepted that Argentina comprised the entirety of the territories of the Vice royalty.

 

[Crni Vuk]

First off, let me assure you that there is plenty of people here willing to take a rifle and fight to the death for them. Including myself.

I am sure many had such opinions unless their first friend or comrade died next to them or when they actually saw their own guts for the first time.

 

[Gonzalez]

@Muskeato

Different points of view and interpretations of facts that cannot be changed. At most all those interpretations can do is try to hint the sovereignty is "debatable", as in a way of not admitting the islands belong to Argentina, but never deny or invalidate the argentine claims. The fact that it was argentine territory, occupied by Argentina with an argentine population and that Britain took it by force, unprovoked and during peacetime cannot be changed.

In any case current claims in the UN are more oriented towards UN resolutions for decolonization and such than in historic details anyway.

@Crni Vuk

I am sure many had such opinions unless their first friend or comrade died next to them or when they actually saw their own guts for the first time.

You mean like the testimonies of veterans who fought there and had to pick up the pieces of their buddies for burial and say the would go back to fight in a heartbeat?

If you ask any argentine veteran who saw action and was bombed for days and nights without stop or relieve, most if not all will say they want the Malvinas back and that they are willing to go back and fight for them.

Also I have been in the Argentine Army and currently am in the army reserve, so if a war were to occur me going to the front lines wouldn't be such a far fetched concept.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I am not so sure if I really believe you. My experience with history and learning about wars tells me that most veterans if not completely brainwashed have rather mixed feelings about wars.

Not to mention that if you really serve in the argentinian military then I am not sure how possible it is to talk about the situation with you without any bias. As said. This is not meant as offense. But that would be like asking a Serbian soldier about his opinion about if Kosovo is rightfully a part of Serbia or not completely ignoring the bigger picture. As said. I don't claim to know much about the Falklandwars.

But again. Ask your self if that thing this rock in the ocean is really worth to wage a war for? Was it even back then when they did fought the British. I am not saying that their claim has more right then any Argentinian claim on that island. But maybe you should ask your self what purpose it had back then and what purpose it serves today. Was it really the feeling of "nationality" that gave the Argentinian leaders the idea to conquer the Falklands? Or have there been other reasons behind it. If already the British, French, German or US government cant be trusted why the Argentinian? All politicians act only in their own interest. Throw around the "patriotism" and "propaganda" phrases around when it fits them. As real patriot though one should as well question his own motivations and particularly the motivations of his government. Right or wrong are many times not a question of black vs white. I can only talk about my experience as Serbian. And I am really sorry when I think about how much damage was done for generations because of the same rhetoric stuff I read from you now.

Claims and what ever else which caused only aggressions, wars endless conflicts hate and what ever else. And in the end it really helped only the "elite" which actually should lead the people while the common man sitting with his rifle in the hole dieing for their targets had nothing from it.

Since argentine is seen today as emerging market I think it would be far better to actually concentrate on education, social reforms and the economy instead of building eventually a military or even thinking about the Falklands. I think the population will have much more from this then any potential aggressions.

But that is just my humble opinion.

 

[Gonzalez]

Who said I wasn't biased? Still doesn't mean I'm wrong, just biased.

Also, Argentina's investment in defense is diminute, especially compared to other countries in the region like Brazil. We are not spending money on weapons, but that doesn't mean we are going to make any concessions in the diplomatic field. There are more ways of fighting other than with weapons.

Also it is always better to resolve conflicts with dialog rather than with force, still doesn't mean I am not ready to fight if it came to that.

I suspect our military expenditure will increase, and it should, to provide at least with an effective defensive force. But it will using local military industry to create jobs locally instead of just wasting money buying weapons from outside and making foreign weapon manufacturers rich, and also making our defense depend of foreign supplies like spare parts and such. A development of such industry takes time.

EDIT: About the veterans I cannot account for every single one of them, but everyone I met thinks the same. One curious thing is when Carlos Robacio, commander of the BIM-5 in the war went to the UK to talk with former british commanders from the war, he said he was asked if he would go back and fight again, he immediately said he would, the british said they didn't wanted to.