Screw the Brits: Northern Ireland. Come across as so civilized and proper. Their colonial record sucks. In 1986 the UK declared a 200 mile Falkland/ Malvina island continental shelf, which just happened to encroach Argentina’s established continental shelf. That would be about like Cuba declaring a 200 mile continental shelf around their island and lay claim to oil in the Gulf of Mexico. Its BS. If the Argentine Government got their act together this would be a no brainer in any court. Stupid to argue over sovereignty of the Malvina/Falkland islands. The oil is not on the islands, it is on Argentina’s continental shelf. Everything is about the Benjis $$$$$.
Malvinas Spat ( United Kindgom beating war drums )
- Thread starter cabrera
- Start date
This has absolutely nothing to do with the Malvinas people or their Malvinas themselves. Dennis R is right that the United kingdom are the worlds most agressive pirates who for hundred of years have been stealing lands and resources over the threat of force.
Once again can you imagine if Argentina went to the coast of United Kindgom and started exploring for oil there . I believe that they are within their rights now as a precedent has been set by the United Kindgoms illegal actions in Argentine waters.
Once again can you imagine if Argentina went to the coast of United Kindgom and started exploring for oil there . I believe that they are within their rights now as a precedent has been set by the United Kindgoms illegal actions in Argentine waters.
you are fully within your rights to claim that argentina has a sovereignty claim over the malvinas, but it is that which the UK is using to go forward with this oil exploration. Which island would argentina be using to go and drill in the seas around britain?
you are not, as we say in english, comparing apples with apples. You are making wildly different comparisons and it makes you look a little silly and a lot over-emotional.
you are not, as we say in english, comparing apples with apples. You are making wildly different comparisons and it makes you look a little silly and a lot over-emotional.
jp said:
Do the math sir. If the Falklands are 300 hundred miles off Argentina's coast and the Brits claim a 200 mile continental shelf, that boundary encroaches on Argentina's continental shelf by 100 miles. Maybe there are special rules limiting Argentina's continental shelf to less than 200 miles. Or, they are not entitled to a continental shelf?
jp said:
The min. distance between argentina continental platform and the islands is 480 KM (300 miles)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands
Exclusive economic zone
An exclusive economic zone extends from the outer limit of the territorial sea to a maximum of 200 nautical miles (370.4 km) from the territorial sea baseline,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters#Exclusive_economic_zone
So... does this mean that England posses a maritime jurisdiction of 110 KM around the islands or that Argentina has jurisdiction only for 110 KM from its continental territory?? (480 minus 370)
Obviously, both claims collide.
malbec said:ElQueso, thank you for your own version of a very distorted history of the Malvinas
You don't see any reasonable argument on Argentina's side because you are blinded by emotion.
Denying the reasons the other party has doesn't make you right.
No, Malbec, being backed up by facts makes one more correct, and certainly much more correct than someone who says "because." Denying the reasons that one party makes false claims, using facts to back up your position, is a debate. You and many fellow Argentines seem to have a real problem understanding that.
And still not a single argument from Malbec or cabrera. At least azerty tried to make an argument, although what he said really had no bearing on anything related to the claim of the Falklands. But from everyone else - just a lot of "you don't understand" and "you're blinded by emotion," but as with this entire debate, not a single fact.
IN FACT, you are doing what you accuse me of doing - you are denying what I say, without even bothering to refute anything - just calling it distorted history without even pointing out why you think that, which is actually the exact manner in which Argentina has handled this situation.
I love how I'm the first one to have mentioned that you Argentines are arguing this point with emotion, and now you are the (at least) second one, maybe the third, to accuse me of that, even though I have presented what I see as facts and not said "because it's so." And now that I have said Argentina is arguing from distorted history, you tell me that I am doing so.
It seems that Argentines who are stuck looking at this without thinking critically are also stuck either repeating the same lame arguments, or turning the arguments of the other party back on themselves with no real argument of proof.
I find it funny anyone accuse me of emotion in this (related to the facts that I have laid out), because I'm from the US and don't have a personal stake in the matter at all. The emotion I feel (and I'm sure that does come out in some responses) is frustration that Argentines can just keep insisting without any proof whatsoever that the Falklands is theirs.
The problem seems to be that Argentines only know how to argue using emotion and haven't figured out yet that the rest of the world actually requires facts.
Where are yours Malbec? Did you even read that document, or are you just assuming that it's distorted? Did you bother to do any verification?
It is so easy for you to say the history is distorted. Prove it! Where are your references refuting what was written in that booklet? Because on doing research on this, I could find nothing that showed that information as incorrect. And some of that information was provided by serious Argentine historians!
Until one of you who thinks that Argentina actually has a claim to the Falklands can show a reason, you are not debating, you are spinning fairy tales. Just as your government does to the rest of the world and continues to screw itself up.
As far as the claims go related to international waters. It would seem that Argentina has no regard for the claims either. The islands are British and do have sovereign rights as well. Perhaps the british are overstepping the size of their claim, but if that's the case, why is argentina not arguing that point?
Seems to me that Cristina is not interested in discussing sharing rights, she is interested in discussing the possession of the Falklands only. That means throw the British out and claim all of that oil for Argentina.
Seems to me that Cristina is not interested in discussing sharing rights, she is interested in discussing the possession of the Falklands only. That means throw the British out and claim all of that oil for Argentina.
