Shares in a U.K. oil company with interests in the Falklands have slumped

[Gonzalez]

It is not my interpretation, it is the law.

Self-determination cannot be applied as it violates the territorial integrity of argentina, because the british have recognized the existance of Argentina prior to their invasion and they conquered the land from an existing nation and then implanted population, it's not a virgin colony with natives.

'On 14 December 1960, when the decolonization process driven by the Charter of the United Nations was already well under way, the United Nations General Assembly adopted resolution 1514 (XV) on the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, which proclaimed “the necessity of bringing to a speedy and unconditional end colonialism in all its forms and manifestations” and set out two fundamental principles that should guide the process of decolonization: self-determination and territorial integrity. This resolution establishes in paragraph 6 that “any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations”. This resolution leaves it indisputably clear that the principle of self-determination cannot be applied where the territorial integrity of States is at stake.'

Also self determination is not applicable to "choosing who you want to belong to". Self determination is only for native people who want to be independent from their parent nation, not for when they want to reaffirm that loyalty. Birtain does this all the time, with Northern Irealand, with Pakistan, with Kuwait, with Hong Kong, they create artificial nations and divisions. They artificially separate a part of a nation and then say that part wants to be a different nation instead of asking the entire nation if they want that territory to depart from them or not. And this is what they did to Argentina, they expelled the Argentine authorities, brougth in their own population, artificially separated the islands from an already existing nation and now they claim the islands should be theirs because the population they implanted themselves says so. Now imagine I send Argentine citzens to the Isle of Men and do the same, not only British would laugh but it wouldn't stand up anywhere legally.

The principle of self-determination applied by the British in the Malvinas is a travesti of what self-determination means and violates laws built in the principle of self-determination itself that limit its cappacities.

Also, it should be noted most british who live in the islands today have not been born in them. Even less come from generations from 1833.

A little history in the form of song

 

[Earth]

the British just went and took them from us by force

And the Spanish took Argentina from the original inhabitants by force. Imperialism happened back then. Tough shit. Doesn't give people an excuse to do it now.

Oh, and about the argument of populating the unpopulated islands, we sent people to South Georgia in 1983 too, the british expelled them too. So it's not as simple, they won't let anyone settle

In 1983. Just when the war had finished. Can't think why the British would want to force the Argentinians off the island.

and if they keep makin gdeaf ears another war is going to happen

And that's when you lose any support from me. It's this constant Argentine posturing that's allowing the hawks in my country to increase military spending constantly. "But if we decrease our military spending, the Argentinians will invade the Falkland Islands!"

Thanks to Galtieri, the British see the Falklands as an issue of national pride now.

 

[Illuminati Confirmed!]

But the Spanish took the Falklands from the British to begin with.

Why would self-determination only be applicable to those seeking independence, but no those who don't want it?

If the people of the Falklands, Northern Ireland, or wherever want to be part of the UK, why shouldn't they?
The Brits probably wouldn't let enough Argentinians settle on the Isle of Man to allow such a scenario, just as Argentina probably wouldn't let the British become a majority in any region where they are likely to secede.

Rather than use warlike rhetoric, work on becoming rich and develop better trade with the Brits, and soon you will have the islanders wanting to join you simply because it's more profitable for them.

Also, according to wikipedia, most islanders are native-born (military personnel stationed there excluded).

 

[Earth]

It should be pointed out that there was discussion in Parliament two years before the war on what to do with the Falklands, the government considering a transfer of sovereignty. Representatives of the Islands demanded that they be allowed to stay within the United Kingdom.

 

[Gonzalez]

But the Spanish took the Falklands from the British to begin with.

The article itself says it at the beginning, they were occupying Spanish territory illegally, so it was Spanish first.

It should be pointed out that there was discussion in Parliament two years before the war on what to do with the Falklands, the government considering a transfer of sovereignty.

They are trying to hide that now because it proves that the British recognized the Argentine claim. And the "representatives" that boicoted a peaceful solution were mainly lobbied by the Falklands Island Company (FIC) who were looking only to protect their greedy money interests (whool, fishing and oil). They were also behind sabotaging peaceful resolutions after the argentina recapture of the islands on April 2, leading to a war where over 1000 died.

The Argentine original plan was to take the islands without British casualties, even at cost of own casualties, then withdraw and seek for another chance of negotiation, while also giving Argentina more time to negotiating by "resetting the clock". All that went to hell when the Belgrano was sunk without warning while returning to base outside the exclusion zone killing over 300 people, half the Argentine casualties of the war.

And that's when you lose any support from me.

A war provoked by British refusal to talk things peacefully, not by Argentine aggresion. If you do not defend what is yours than you don't deserve to have it, and after so many years of patience and attempts at peaceful resolution, the British forced our hand.

Also, for those who, well intentioned, keep talking about the choice of the islanders, you might be interested on reading this.

 

[Earth]

The article itself says it at the beginning, they were occupying Spanish territory illegally, so it was Spanish first.

They are trying to hide that now because it proves that the British recognized the Argentine claim. And the "representatives" that boicoted a peaceful solution were mainly lobbied by the Falklands Island Company (FIC) who were looking only to protect their greedy money interests (whool, fishing and oil). They were also behind sabotaging peaceful resolutions after the argentina recapture of the islands on April 2, leading to a war where over 1000 died.

The Argentine original plan was to take the islands without British casualties, even at cost of own casualties, then withdraw and seek for another chance of negotiation, while also giving Argentina more time to negotiating by "resetting the clock". All that went to hell when the Belgrano was sunk without warning while returning to base outside the exclusion zone killing over 300 people, half the Argentine casualties of the war.

A war provoked by British refusal to talk things peacefully, not by Argentine aggresion. If you do not defend what is yours than you don't deserve to have it, and after so many years of patience and attempts at peaceful resolution, the British forced our hand.

Wow. An account of the war where the fascists in Argentina did nothing wrong whatsoever. Of course, you're right. How stupid of me. Everything that happened, even the Argentinians' actions, were all the British's fault. Did you hear that everyone? The Argentine invaders just wanted to take the islands peacefully. I mean, just look at all their efforts to find a peaceful solution, like building a military base on Southern Thule in 1976, under the guise of a "scientific expedition". Clearly the work of peace-loving hippies. And that invasion of the islands in 1982? The Argentinians clearly just wanted to have a beach party on the islands. With guns.

You have convinced me. The blood of every single person who died in the war is on Britain's hands, and nothing to do with the fascist invasion force sent there by Argentina's military dictator to distract everyone from Argentina's stagnating economy and suppression of human rights. Clearly, only the British are at fault.

 

[Gonzalez]

Yeah, I bet you never heard of a version of the story other than you own, well, they do exists, they are not a legend. And the ones at fault are the greedy private interests that sabotaged peaceful resolutions between the two nations, twice, so you got it wrong.

Look at the cold numbers, no British casualties in the Argenitne assault, not even wounded. But I guess we hurt something much more painful that no one accounted for in the plan, your pride. I mean, we could have killed hundreds, as long as it was some other shitty nation instead of your territory but, your pride, that's unforgibable, that's easy worth 300 Argentine lives at least.

And the best part is, no one in Britain knew the islands even existed, but how dare they take them from us!

 

[Illuminati Confirmed!]

The article itself says it at the beginning, they were occupying Spanish territory illegally, so it was Spanish first.

They both claimed it was theirs, what makes the Spanish claim stronger? And even if something does, how does that make them rightfully Argentinian rather than Spanish?

And more importantly, why is the decision of the people living there now a bad way of determining which country the land should belong to? What possible moral case could you have for that?

The Argentine original plan was to take the islands without British casualties, even at cost of own casualties, then withdraw and seek for another chance of negotiation, while also giving Argentina more time to negotiating by "resetting the clock". All that went to hell when the Belgrano was sunk without warning while returning to base outside the exclusion zone killing over 300 people, half the Argentine casualties of the war.

You don't occupy someone's territory and act all surprised when they later shoot at you without warning.

A war provoked by British refusal to talk things peacefully, not by Argentine aggresion. If you do not defend what is yours than you don't deserve to have it, and after so many years of patience and attempts at peaceful resolution, the British forced our hand.

But the British also see it as theirs, and since they have done a better job defending it from you than you defending it from them, that makes their claim better, right?

Also, for those who, well intentioned, keep talking about the choice of the islanders, you might be interested on reading this.

This is not an argument, fact is that even if the Brits displaced a majority population which was not their own from the Falklands, it happened 170 years ago. The living islanders wanting to be part of the UK is a fact. Just because the UK can be an asshole doesn't mean that it's always wrong.

 

[Earth]

The person giving me a clearly slanted account of what happened is then accusing me of biased knowledge. You'll notice I didn't actually disagree with anything you said. I'm just pointing out that your account of what happened is so laughably one-sided it's like I was being lectured on the war by Galtieri himself.

And again, thanks to Galtieri, and your own apparent (childish) nationalism, the Argentinians are not going to get those islands anytime soon.

 

[Gonzalez]

All which brings us to the starting topic on the thread. No one in Argentina expects understanding from the UK, they have showed that what they want they keep, by force, and not even a hundred years of diplomacy will change their minds. So every little victory, even economic ones are motive for celebration.

So yes, you better keep troops down there (and pay for them) because the first chance we get we will take them back. That is, as long as you think they are worth keeping. I've always been of the mind that you should talk softly while carrying a tactical nuclear warhead. The UK can dismiss Argentina's claim all they want because right now they are stronger militarly, and that's what they do, and continue to do as long as it remains so, but we are patient, we still have another 100 years since 1982 to "reset the clock" or take them from you for good.

This is not an argument, fact is that even if the Brits displaced a majority population which was not their own from the Falklands, it happened 170 years ago. The living islanders wanting to be part of the UK is a fact. Just because the UK can be an asshole doesn't mean that it's always wrong.

You fail to see the crux of the matter:

"The central tenet in question is that, in the prosecution of imperial geo-policy, humanitarian considerations per se are utterly irrelevant, except in so far as the people involved may represent either an exploitable asset or a disposable liability - i.e. pure Machiavelli. The Falklands population have the good fortune to be in the former category and the Chagossians the misfortune to be in the latter. It really is that simple."

All talks of "the poor islanders" are hipocresy, if there were no islanders, or if they wanted to be Argentines the British would still keep those islands as long as it served them for something.

 

[Illuminati Confirmed!]

You fail to see the crux of the matter:

"The central tenet in question is that, in the prosecution of imperial geo-policy, humanitarian considerations per se are utterly irrelevant, except in so far as the people involved may represent either an exploitable asset or a disposable liability - i.e. pure Machiavelli. The Falklands population have the good fortune to be in the former category and the Chagossians the misfortune to be in the latter. It really is that simple."

All talks of "the poor islanders" are hipocresy, if there were no islanders, or if they wanted to be Argentines the British would still keep those islands as long as it served them for something.

I'm not saying that they wouldn't act like that if that was the case. But that isn't the case.

Your neighbor being an asshole doesn't make his courtyard yours.

 

[Crni Vuk]

All which brings us to the starting topic on the thread. No one in Argentina expects understanding from the UK, they have showed that what they want they keep, by force, and not even a hundred years of diplomacy will change their minds.

I am just curious about this, if Argentine was in Britains position, would you show this understanding that you're talking about? I think the point that many people want to make here is, that yes, Britain is a dick, they have been always dicks trough history, with collonialism and wars and all that shit. But that makes them hardly special. If Argentine had the power, they would pretty much do the same.

 

[Earth]

It's rather sad. Seeing a human brain enslaved to something as childish as nationalism. As if you yourself have some emotional stake in being born on a specific rock. It's funny that you posted this thread on a Fallout site. As someone pointed out, this blind patriotism and militarism was a subject of mockery in the series, not to mention the war over resources is eventually what causes the 2077 nuclear war. But why learn from the game's message? Keep believing in your plot of rock carved out for you by some disinterested bureaucrat two hundred years ago, and then wonder why the world has gone to hell when people like you are put in control of things. It's this attitude: the attitude that urges you to create a completely pointless thread for you to wave your patriotic dick around in celebration every time your country does something right, that will lead to Armageddon.

You admit that there was a time when the British were amenable to negotiation: "They are trying to hide that now because it proves that the British recognized the Argentine claim". The fact is, your beloved Argentina fucked up. And if your going to come out with hypothetical notions, I will as well, and say that the Argentinians had every chance of negotiating specific uninhabited islands from a British government that didn't give two shits about some distant rock populated by sheep farmers. Chances are that we could have had a nice trading alliance going on, maybe even (shock) a share of resources. But no, your country was just too impatient, and instead of diplomacy picked a fight, and worse than that picked a fight with a warmonger like Thatcher. So naturally the Argentinians, with nearly no international support from anyone, got their arses kicked (with a substantial loss of life of course).

But rather than face up to your actions, to your share of the blame, you squeal foul, crying that it was all the mean old Brit's fault. That poor little Argentina HAD NO CHOICE but to invade. Because it's been drilled into your brain that it's never Argentina's fault. Argentina, even when controlled by a fascist dictatorship that slaughtered thousands, can never be wrong, because YOU happen to live there. And Britain, of course, is the Evil Empire that will NEVER understand the plight of the poor little Argentinians. Will never understand that your resource-rich country just needs more resources. Resources that only the Falkland Islands can provide. So the Argentinians MUST use violence, to the point that Britain can NEVER let their guard down. You smugly say: "I bet you never heard of a version of the story other than you own" but are you even capable of looking at the Falklands from a British perspective? Because so far all I've heard is moronic posturing from some keyboard warrior with Argentine pride shoved so far up their arse that Pugliese tango is playing through their ears.

tl;dr: Violence will not solve Argentina's problems. Nationalist pride is hollow. Read some history books that don't fit your world view. Accept that the British and Argentine blood spilled is as much on Argentina's hands as it is on Britain's.

 

[Gonzalez]

@Crni Vuk

Your logic is completely flawed, Argentina could never be in the same situation because Argentina is not a colonial empire and it never was, how in hell we would get settlements tens of thousands of miles away from our nation rigth next to the UK? Have you ever even seen a map of the diputed area?

It is huge, and they use the excuse of 2000 villagers in one of the islands to claim for all that.

EDIT:

Argentinians had every chance of negotiating specific uninhabited islands from a British government that didn't give two shits about some distant rock populated by sheep farmers.

That is laughable at best, and a show of complete ignorance on the subject at worse. Argentina tried negotiations eversince 1933 and the British always ignored us.

Get educated. There is a buildup and buildup of UN resulution after UN resolution urging the UK to negotiate, all ignored or stalled.

Argentina showed predisposition and even did a lot of things for the islanders, spent money on the islands, gave them transport and comunications. And all this was for nothing, the UK kept jerking us off and in 1982, just before the war, stopped all negotiations completely. This is what led to the war.

Also, I never said I was "neutral" I always been very partial with this subject and never denied that. I respect the UK currently has control of the area by superior force, and they will continue to do so as long as they can assert that force, but that might change in the future. The 1982 conflict was a much closer call than most in the UK dare to admit, and this is said by the British commander who fougth there.

If Argentina attacked today the UK could not respond, they would rely only on the defenders to suceed, and be unable to retake the islands later. Thing is, it's not viable to attack yet, so not even I would recommend it.

The only way I see to recover the islands "peacefully" is to build an invasion force capable of theathening the islands and any posibility of recapture by the British that they will consider a negotiation preferable than the cost of conflict. But as long as the UK is superior militarly they will never negotiate.

The powerful do not negotiate with the weak, not unless what they want is more trouble than i'ts worth, they just take what they want. So it's up to us to make it more trouble than it's worth.

 

[Crni Vuk]

@Gonzalez, mate, calm down ... did you ever heard about this strange word empathy?

Your logic is completely flawed, Argentina could never be in the same situation because Argentina is not a colonial empire and it never was, how in hell we would get settlements tens of thousands of miles away from our nation rigth next to the UK? Have you ever even seen a map of the diputed area?

Why are you saying that?

No one knows the future, no one knows if Argentina might not end up one day in Britains position. History, and even more politics, is after all, just an an endless string of repeating events.

Anyway, my question to you was: “I am just curious about this, if Argentina was in Britains position, would you show this understanding that you're talking about?"

Why do you think I asked this question?

Have you ever heard about this particuliar exercise in philosophy? The idea is, that you take a known scenario, or a completely imaginary situation and change something. The important part in this exercise is, that you stay true to the rules you defined, no Deus Ex Machina. In other words, a thought experiment. The Allegory of the Cave by Plato, would be such an example.

Obviously, you can do thought experiments, with Britain and Argentina as well. Switching their roles for example, but with the same problem as before. If Britain was the smaller oponent, and Argentina a nation with strong ties to collonialism, or if the Falklands would be located closer to Britain. You never had a situation in your life where you asked your self, what the person you're arguing with, might be thinking? Or to imagine your self in his shoes?

Do you believe the Argenitinan people, their politicians, military and civilians would feel less strong about their claims, even if their claim was the weaker one? That's the point I want to make.

You know, I could care less about Argentine, Britain or who has a stronger claim on those Islands, and who's right or wrong. As I don't know it really. Because honestly, obviously every side in a conflict, particularly one like this here, will always see them self with the stronger entitlement, and with righteousness on their side. That's pretty much a given. And depending on who you ask, you might get different opinions, on the same case. Seriously, not even WW2, was always clearly black vs. white.

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

 

[Izak]

Hey Gonzalez thanks for the map, I was a little confused on how holding onto the Falkland islands gave the UK a stronger claim to Antarctica but that clears it up.

 

[Ragemage]

Hol-ee shit. No, seeing that map I can see why Gonzales is pissed. Calling people who live in that village "sheep fuckers" is going overboard, but I can certainly understand why he would be upset about Britain owning all of that.

For that matter, isn't Antarctica supposed to be owned by everyone? That's why you can't have an Antarctic citizenship, they'll just give you the birthplace of your parents. (as seen here: http://webecoist.momtastic.com/2011/02/15/born-freezing-meet-antarcticas-first-citizen/ ) That baby was born in Antarctica but because his parents are Argentinan, that's what nationality he's listed under.

Yeah, yeah, I found it. No one's supposed to own Antarctica, it's supposed to be shared by everyone: http://www.ats.aq/e/ats.htm This.

 

[Izak]

Yeah but there's an older claim the UK made to Antarctica in 1908 that's still supported by most of the former British colonies as well as France and Norway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Antarctic_Territory#Recognition
Now I'm imagining WW3 taking place because countries can't agree on who owns the rights to areas in the Antarctic.
Edit:Now @Gonzalez I'm still confused on one or two points, why do you personally give a shit about a bunch of shitty little islands? And why do you think Argentina deserve those lands more than the British? Is it because Argentina's closer? Because that seems like shitty reasoning, the same shitty reasoning Argentinas old dictator used during the Falklands war, I'm really struggling to see this as anything other than advocating imperialism.

 

[Crni Vuk]

There is a whole continent full of resources under it after all.

 

[Hassknecht]

Hey Gonzalez thanks for the map, I was a little confused on how holding onto the Falkland islands gave the UK a stronger claim to Antarctica but that clears it up.

To be fair, it's not just the Falklands on that map but also the South Sandwich Islands.
Also, map projection makes it all look enormous.

Not so huge when you look at it like this.
Or this one:

http://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ce0BE1TWsAQn7bD.jpg