Falklands

[Crni Vuk]

and they would lose again.

 

[El Pagano Loco]

No way. They eat roid fed beef.

 

[brfritos]

What argentines don't tell most people about the claims over Falklands - again??? - is the whole attempt of their government to hide their economic/social crisis by deviating the real issues to a periferic one.

Argentina is lacking competetive force in the international market, their economy is staled, inflation is raising every month, the political and economic reforms screwed the country, the fiscal deficit is enormous, Cristina Kirchner is a populist president that rules like Hugo Chavez does in Venezuela and the whole justifications for England delivering back the islands are totally absurd and surreal.

What is most curious is the military junta which had ruled Argentina since 1976 used almost the same justifications at the time that Cristina Kirchner is using now for going to war, regarding nationalism.
Then the actual govern added the whole "sovereignty and economy" addendums to it.

 

[34thcell]

I think the Argentine claim is a waste of time. What if the islands became independent (which they would prefer over Argentine control and be entirely within their)? The British would still be militarily and economically invested (probably even more so).

Using "self determination" to postemptively justify colonisation is pretty fishy and should be challenged by the UN, but this wouldn't really benefit Argentina.

 

[x'il]

What argentines don't tell most people about the claims over Falklands - again??? - is the whole attempt of their government to hide their economic/social crisis by deviating the real issues to a periferic one. (...)

Sure, but that doesn't negate any points being made about the claims either.

 

[.Pixote.]

Sure, but that doesn't negate any points being made about the claims either.

Anyone can make a claim, but will the international community recognize it. Taiwan was considered the legitimate government for China up until about 1970, because it suited the Wests needs/ideology.

The same can be said about the Falklands, not until the majority of the major countries recognize Argentina's claim will anyone care about the subject. Screaming and crying about it won't make any difference. The smart move is to not even bring up the subject, and open up all trade and tourist routes. Allow the people of the Falklands to slowly become comfortable with Argentina, and over time who knows, they might want to join their new friends...it might take about 200 years though.

 

[x'il]

The same can be said about the Falklands, not until the majority of the major countries recognize Argentina's claim will anyone care about the subject. Screaming and crying about it won't make any difference.

True, but also, will never happen: western world status quo trumps anything.

The smart move is to not even bring up the subject, and open up all trade and tourist routes. Allow the people of the Falklands to slowly become comfortable with Argentina, and over time who knows, they might want to join their new friends...it might take about 200 years though.

Disagree. So, shuttin' up and do nothing, and basically playing the game the British want them to play, and even worse enabling it, without even protesting, sure, sounds perfect for Argentina....

 

[Gonzalez]

Argentina is lacking competetive force in the international market, their economy is staled, inflation is raising every month, the political and economic reforms screwed the country, the fiscal deficit is enormous

Where in heaven's name you get your information? Deficit??? This government is the first one to achive budget surplus and build up reserves. You must even think we still have a debt with the IMF, it's like the spanish guys complaining abut YPF threatening to denaunce us to the IMF when they can't do absolutely anything, we payed them off!

No wonder why you think our claims are absurd if you got the facts like that.

Anyone can make a claim, but will the international community recognize it.

The international community does not even recognizes the Falklands government the UK uses as an excuse for self determination.

Also, argentina is not "all alone" in it's claim, 33 countries in South America openly support our claim, along with Spain and Portugal, straight out saying the islands should be returned to Argentina.

Also this: http://forum.newzimbabwe.com/index....countries-urge-uk-to-negotiate-over-malvinas/

A declaration has been signed by 130 countries in the 30th United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, urging the British government to engage in negotiations over the disputed Malvinas Islands.

The declaration says there was an urgent “need for Argentina and the Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to resume negotiations in accordance with the principles and objectives of the United Nations Charter and relevant resolutions of the General Assembly.”

Furthermore the 130 countries, which were attending the G-77 plus China in Qatar, called for “a peaceful solution to the sovereignty dispute over the Falkland [Malvinas] Islands.”

This comes as Britain has repeatedly announced that it would not get engaged in any negotiations on the sovereignty over the islands while the archipelago is among the 16 territories on the UN Committee on Decolonization's list of colonies awaiting liberation. Ten of the 16 territories are under the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.

The South Atlantic Malvinas Islands are located 250 nautical miles from Argentina and were occupied by Britain in 1833.

Earlier this month, US President Barak Obama said the US position on the dispute between Argentina and Britain over the Malvinas islands was “going to remain neutral.” Obama’s reference to the islands by their Spanish name instead of “the Falklands,” which the British use to call the archipelago, was a real setback to the so-called ‘Special Relationship’ between Britain and the US.

 

[Crni Vuk]

What argentines don't tell most people about the claims over Falklands - again??? - is the whole attempt of their government to hide their economic/social crisis by deviating the real issues to a periferic one. (...)

Sure, but that doesn't negate any points being made about the claims either.

maybe yes, maybe not. I don't claim that I know that much about the topic. But the attitude really does not help him to explain his position.

Not to mention that if you look at it from a realistic point of view it is not important how right the argentines are. There is not really a realistic chance to get the Falklands back any time soon. I compare it with Serbia and the Kosovo. Does anyone today care about that pretty much all the crimes they told about the Serbian government and soldiers have been lies and thus the whole intention behind the war was a scam? That there never was really a "mass genocide" going on? But the NATO had at least their legitimation in the public. Its sad. But there is nothing I or the Serbian government can do about it.

Thats history for you. Thats how things go. Always. And all you can do is to accept it and move on.

 

[34thcell]

Independence is different to wanting your territory to belong to a particular government.

 

[brfritos]

What argentines don't tell most people about the claims over Falklands - again??? - is the whole attempt of their government to hide their economic/social crisis by deviating the real issues to a periferic one. (...)

Sure, but that doesn't negate any points being made about the claims either.

maybe yes, maybe not. I don't claim that I know that much about the topic. But the attitude really does not help him to explain his position.

Do you mean my attitude or the argentine government?
Personally I don't give a damn about the whole situation, like you said, is how things work politically. But the arguments Argentine make to obtain the islands are ridiculous.

To provide you some insigth, Argentine claims their right over Falklands because the islands were first occupied by France (1764 – 1767), then Great Britain (1771 – 1776), then Spain (1767 – 1811). They say Spain granted them sovereignty of the islands, but from 1811 until 1829 the islands were lefted empty and even US occupied them from december 1831 to january 1832.
Then from december 1832 until january 1833 Argentine, called Argentine Confederation at the time, occupied the islands but were expeled by the british, now formely United Kingdom, wich occupied the islands from january to august 1833.
Then - again! - the islands were lefted unoccupied from august 1833 to january 1834 and in january 1834 UK returned to the islands and established a colony, ruling the islands until today.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you want some territory the first thing you do is occupy the aforementioned territory.
Why Argentina lefted the islands empty even claiming sovereignty at the time really bugs me (at least build a fort).
Also, all nations at the time claimed they have sovereignty over the islands except US because the Monroe doctrine, even leaving plaques saying they own them.

I can really understand why Argentina wants the islands. First it's very close to the continent and like people use to say, "too much close for confort", you know how nations are sensitive about the surrounding areas of their territories.
Second it appears there's a lot of petroleum around the islands, this was discovered in 2006 if i recall correctly (that's why the economic arguments were introduced in today's claims).

What really annoys me is if Argentina didn't engaged in the '82 war, the possibility of having the islands today would be very high.
The UN always recommended UK to negociate and solve the issue; US also maded this recommendation to UK in the 60's.
From 1970 until 1979 Argentine was the "de facto" economic force in the island, providing oil and fuel regularly, creating airways lines between the continent and the islands, building infrastructures like Stanley airport and such.
By 1979 the british government was considering given the sovereignty of the islands to Argentine because was a worthy effort to improve relations with them, the island didn't had any economic value and England was having a lot of economic troubles at the time, but the british government didn't have too much power in Houses of Parliament, so the proposition didn't passed.

Sadly we can only speculate of what would happen, since the british government was changed in 79-80 and who knows, but Argentine had the brilliant idea of waging war with a nation that is nothing except experts in naval warfare for the past 400 hundred years at least!
Not even nazi germany having England facing a wall and with their hands in their throats was capable of that.
And let's not even discuss warfare tactics, a military convoy is approaching your country after travelling 13,000 km away from their home and the only thing you do is sit and wait?
Not even a submarine trying to sink their ships before they reach mainland? Because a large bulk of the british ground troops was confined in a single ship, the Queen Elizabeth ocean liner? Really?

Like I said before, I can really understand WHY they want the Falklands (called by them "Malvinas"), but saying they have exclusive sovereignty rights is ridiculous.

 

[TheGM]

If anything Argentina belongs to the Falklands.

Seeing as how Argentina invaded the Falklands and their combined military muscle was no match for Farmer Brown and his trusty pitchfork, and they got WAFFLE STOMPED for such audacity. Argentina lost horribly and in such a defeat their sovereign rights as a nation(as disputable as they are as the Falklands never recognized Argentina's right to exist) should be forfeit.

and that is why Farmer Brown should be Emperor over Argentina.

VIVA FARMER BROWN!

VIVA FALKLAND SOUTH-AMERICAN EMPIRE OF los FLAKLANDS!

 

[Crni Vuk]

Do you mean my attitude or the argentine government?
Personally I don't give a damn about the whole situation, like you said, is how things work politically. But the arguments Argentine make to obtain the islands are ridiculous. .

Now that I am thinking about it both actually but I was not talking about you here.

 

[brfritos]

Do you mean my attitude or the argentine government?
Personally I don't give a damn about the whole situation, like you said, is how things work politically. But the arguments Argentine make to obtain the islands are ridiculous. .

Now that I am thinking about it both actually but I was not talking about you here.

Then sorry, my bad.

 

[Gonzalez]

Why Argentina lefted the islands empty even claiming sovereignty at the time really bugs me (at least build a fort).... ....Then - again! - the islands were lefted unoccupied from august 1833 to january 1834 and in january 1834 UK returned to the islands and established a colony, ruling the islands until today.

Argentina was occupying the islands, had a fort and even a garrison, the US destroyed the fort and the guns they had as defense, after this Argentina sent troops to reinforce, then britain invaded and expelled the government, civilians and the garrison. The british didn't started settling the islands until later but they never left them unoccupied.

What really annoys me is if Argentina didn't engaged in the '82 war, the possibility of having the islands today would be very high.

I don't think so, the UK already stopped all negotiations and refused to continue on them before the war, not after, as I explained already:

...but when rumors were herd that there was oil there, the UK basically left the table of negotiations making clear they were not going to discuss the matter anymore and started sending military vessels to the area. The argentine government at the moment tied those two facts together and decided to try to retake the islands before the UK made a fortress out of them.

EDIT:

The UN always recommended UK to negociate and solve the issue; US also maded this recommendation to UK in the 60's.

And they still do, the only one who is against negotiating is the UK, and I suspect for the same reasons they withdrawn from negotiations before the war.

Not even a submarine trying to sink their ships before they reach mainland? Because a large bulk of the british ground troops was confined in a single ship, the Queen Elizabeth ocean liner? Really?

Really? With which submarines? How would they get past the NATO experts on submarine warfare defences? And how would they know which exact ship out of the 100 ships the british sent would most of their troops would be located in, and if they did, how would they be able to pin-point it's exact location in the fleet and take it down? And even if Argentina was capable of doing this with such precise effectiveness and prowess it would require, why do you suggest they should attack this transport ship instead of, I don't know, one or both of their aircraft carriers?

I mean, since you seem to be an such expert on naval warfare.

 

[Crni Vuk]

we get it gonzalez the brits are evil nazis and the argentines poor victims which never did anything wrong.

 

[Eternauta]

we get it gonzalez the brits are evil nazis and the argentines poor victims which never did anything wrong.

Maybe you're just trolling, but I think it's important to make it clear that our claim doesn't come from any form of hate or stupid national pride.

There are some idiots here in Argentina, who do think we should hate the British people and for example attacked the English embassy not so long ago. These however are only smaller groups who usually don't have a clue about anything, or members of far-leftwing political parties. Their attitude is totally different from the one our government shows.

I support our claim and feel proud that our current government is working for that in international forums and without any stupid "we will get the Malvinas back even if it means blood!" speech. At the same time, I have nothing against the British people, for me it'd be the same if those islands were occupied by England or by any other country.

I play FOnline:2238 and the first guys I used to team up with were two very kind and funny English dudes. When someone (in IRC, in forums, in FOnline or whatever) says he/she is British, the Malvinas are not the first thing that comes to my mind. I also like many bands and musicians from that country such as The Beatles, David Bowie, The Cure, etc.

I don't think it's bad to discuss about Malvinas here, but we should remember that this discussion won't change anything in international diplomacy, so at least we should stick to the islands without deforming this thread into some "Argies/Brits are nazi!1!" bullshit.

 

[Crni Vuk]

we get it gonzalez the brits are evil nazis and the argentines poor victims which never did anything wrong.

Maybe you're just trolling, but I think it's important to make it clear that our claim doesn't come from any form of hate or stupid national pride.

that's not the feeling I have though. I don't claim that I have read every single post in here, but to me it sounds like the overall tone is "the Brits are wrong! We are right! if you disagree, then you have no clue!".

While I sure don't blame anyone, in my eyes (and I see my self as neutral) I think the Brits have just as much reason to claim that rock like the argentines. Because honestly. History? Then we should give Argentine back to the Spaniards ... or even better to the native population there. Could start to send "nicely" the other people back to their homelands, France, Spain etc. Yes, I am exaggerating and trolling a bit now, but just to make a point. Take some jews as example which claim the whole area of Israel theirs because of 5000 years old history. I never understood that. Neither the reason some of "my" people gave for Cosovo, because the battled the Turks there some thousand years ago (which is also questionable since the serbians like known today didn't even exist back then). So in my eyes its always dangerous yeah, unprofessional to bring up history in such conflicts. Because at the end, you will always have to deal with the same argument. And you are going nowhere. Except in another conflict.

I can feel that there is quite some aggression. And since I don't see any British person coming in here to argue I am kinda thinking it has a reason. The only Brit person that I know of is Mikey, and he did the most intelligent thing. Backing away.

Do I say argentine has to simply "accept" its fate? Hell no! As said. They have every right to claim that thing theirs. But. One has to be realistic at some point as I don't see that it will change any time soon as long Britain is still one of the best armed forces in the world (relatively speaking) with a strong alliance to Europe AND the USA. Remember. In the Falkland wars the USA have been friends to Britain and Argentine. Which side have they chosen in the end?

Maybe in 100 years when the Asian coalition has conquered London while the British fleet has been destroyed by the African Union the Argentines can claim the Falklands as their ground. And then the South American Alliance can take North America.

Hmm ... that could be an great idea for a game ...

*Edit
Oh and dont tell me its "not" about nationalism and pride. Seriously. I am a Serbian. Its ALWAYS about nationalism and pride when it comes to land and conflicts. There are for sure as well other reasons. But those two play always a major factor. Probably not for every individual. But when looking at the situation as whole then it is.

 

[Eternauta]

that's not the feeling I have though. I don't claim that I have read every single post in here, but to me it sounds like the overall tone is "the Brits are wrong! We are right! if you disagree, then you have no clue!".

Well, in that case you should read Gonzalez's posts more carefully. That is not the attitude I see in his posts. Instead I see he is able to defend the arguments of Argentina's claim, which is a lot different.

While I sure don't blame anyone, in my eyes (and I see my self as neutral) I think the Brits have just as much reason to claim that rock like the argentines. Because honestly. History? Then we should give Argentine back to the Spaniards ... or even better to the native population there...

The Malvinas under Argentinean control would mean more independence for Latin America. Right now what we have is an European nation from far away predating resources in our side of the planet.

I can feel that there is quite some aggression. And since I don't see any British person coming in here to argue I am kinda thinking it has a reason. The only Brit person that I know of is Mikey, and he did the most intelligent thing. Backing away.

So just because no British people participate in this discussion, you think we're aggressive? So if British users participated, we wouldn't be aggressive? Please, define us from what we are and not from what other people do. Also, why is backing away the most intelligent thing? What is wrong with discussing this topic here as long as we just defend our arguments? If someone stays out of the discussion is because he/she doesn't care or thinks he/she has not enough information to participate. If you care about a discussion and have information about and you're able to defend your arguments, why would it be more intelligent to back away?

Remember. In the Falkland wars the USA have been friends to Britain and Argentine. Which side have they chosen in the end?

Since when the USA is a model we should imitate, especially about the Malvinas situation? And the USA was "friendly" to Argentina during that time, because we were having a dictatorship doing their dirty work by killing people who belonged to political groups that wanted Argentina to be independent from the USA, and even from the USSR as well.

Maybe in 100 years when the Asian coalition has conquered London while the British fleet has been destroyed by the African Union the Argentines can claim the Falklands as their ground. And then the South American Alliance can take North America.

I see you do not have a clue about what this South American alliance is about. We just want to defend our independence and our people. We just want to be ok without harming anyone. We got European military presence near our coast and we don't like how that looks.

Oh and dont tell me its "not" about nationalism and pride.

It's not. It's about patriotism which is different. Nationalism is what the Third Reich had when its leader spoke about the "master race" and taking over the world. Nationalism is negative and aggressive. Patriotism is defensive. Our nations have been attacked militarily, politically and economically, and patriotism is only to defend ourselves against that. Nationalism is when you think your nation is superior. Patriotism is when you think all nations are equal and you want to defend your nation from outside forces.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Patriotism defensive? History would like to have word with you.

What I mean with "British" is that the argument is one sided without someone taking the position of the other side that has some knowledge about the topic. Most people here (me included) posting either against the argentines or just their opinion probably know not enough about the topic, which is understandable since the Falklands are on the other side of the Solar System and it never meant much for Europe while it probably plays an much more important role for the Argentines or the South Americans.