Malvinas Spat ( United Kindgom beating war drums )

[almagestos]

You can say that again. Argentina does have a pipeline network and oil refineries (I believe in dock sud or La Plata's port, or both) but that's not the issue. Angolan oil is not refined in the Africa and they store it in Cabinda within a heavily guarded compound surrounded by a landmine field. Far from glamorous but that's the beauty of the oil industry: it pays off.



Lol, I've been called worse, no offense taken - whatsoever



Then let's explore different maps.

I've checked that Viedma was indeed "founded" in 1779, but the question is: was it a nominal foundation as in some officials papers sent to the King (i.e. not even a military outpost (like Fuerte Bulnes) ) or a real settlement? I hardly doubt that: I've been reading a lot about the foundation of the Argentine Navy by Irish-come-Argentine William Brown and it seems that that the Bahia Blanca was oozing with British Privateers (which helped the Independence cause) while inland was just roaming Indian tribes.

I mentioned Perito Moreno ("Argentine Louis n Clark") because he was born in 1852 and was hired to chart Patagonia after the Conquista del Desierto (have a 100 peso note at hand?).

I apologize in advance for hijacking the thread but I'm just fascinated by maps and history:

This is the map I was thinking of when I wrote about Argentina not having a seacoast during the Revolution:

Seems quiet right to me: Argentina comes from the northwest, didn't it separated fromt the Vyrrreynato del Peru in 1776, with Tucuman and Buenos Aires being the most important cities? Wasn't Buenos Aires the only seaport well into the XIX century, and thus a source of many conflicts between Buenos Aires and the inland provinces?

Here you can see how both Patagonia and Chaco were the last two regions of Argentina to be settled, or incorporated:


But I've also found these other maps which I suspect refer mainly to claims, not actual incorporation:


1858: notice the dotted line separating Buenos Aires from the Pampas-Patagonia

1860:

1874:
http://www.rare-maps.com/MAPS_PIC/MIT-1874-NEWGRANADA.JPG

I think this might also explain why the Argentine coast is so underdeveloped and sparsely populated compared to the rest of the country - and also why Chileans like to claim most of Patagonia for themselves (notice how Chile extended farther south than Rio de la Plata, including again, the important military outpost of Fuerte Bulnes at Magellan Strait)

Patagonia y Chaco fueron los últimos territorios en ser incorporados a las Provincias Unidas del Río de la Plata, pero igualmente fueron territorios descubiertos y explorados por los españoles y reconocidos como tierras pertenecientes a la corona española, al igual que las islas Malvinas, islas Aurora, Georgias del sur, etc...

Buenos Aires era una ciudad puerto habitada por españoles y criollos y sin embargo fue invadida 2 VECES por los ingleses... o sea que según el punto de vista inglés no sólo tienen derecho de usurpar territorios deshabitados, sino también ciudades habitadas como Buenos Aires xD (Leer "invasiones inglesas en el Río de la Plata")

La Patagonia argentina no está menos poblada que el resto del país por haber sido poblada mucho más tarde...
Las ciudades de la costa patagónica están localizadas a orillas de los ríos, es una zona muy desértica... y la población para vivir necesita agua dulce... que haya una ciudad cada 200 o 300 km, no significa que se debe a que fue poblada más tarde, significa simplemente que las ciudades se fundan donde hay recursos que garanticen su permanencia y eso lo pueden lograr viviendo a orillas de los ríos... Egipto hace miles de años que fue poblado y sin embargo la mayor parte del país está despoblado, casi todas las ciudades están a orillas del Nilo... y no por eso el desierto deja de ser de ellos...

 

[tangobob]

Bob, I've been searching for info about that. The only thing I came across was not that there was an agreement, but that Cristina withdrew from talks about that, saying that they were going to press their claim for the Falklands.

Do you have any links for more info about this?

Sorry I seem to perhaps have done what I accuse others of, hearsay.
I am sure I read it, but untill I find it back, I accept that what you said is right as that is all that I can find as well.

 

[Moonwitch]

Russia, Norway, Holland, Kazachstan, etc

Those countries aren´t feasible

 

[ElQueso]

Patagonia y Chaco fueron los últimos territorios en ser incorporados a las Provincias Unidas del Río de la Plata, pero igualmente fueron territorios descubiertos y explorados por los españoles y reconocidos como tierras pertenecientes a la corona española, al igual que las islas Malvinas, islas Aurora, Georgias del sur, etc...

Buenos Aires era una ciudad puerto habitada por españoles y criollos y sin embargo fue invadida 2 VECES por los ingleses... o sea que según el punto de vista inglés no sólo tienen derecho de usurpar territorios deshabitados, sino también ciudades habitadas como Buenos Aires xD (Leer "invasiones inglesas en el Río de la Plata")

La Patagonia argentina no está menos poblada que el resto del país por haber sido poblada mucho más tarde...
Las ciudades de la costa patagónica están localizadas a orillas de los ríos, es una zona muy desértica... y la población para vivir necesita agua dulce... que haya una ciudad cada 200 o 300 km, no significa que se debe a que fue poblada más tarde, significa simplemente que las ciudades se fundan donde hay recursos que garanticen su permanencia y eso lo pueden lograr viviendo a orillas de los ríos... Egipto hace miles de años que fue poblado y sin embargo la mayor parte del país está despoblado, casi todas las ciudades están a orillas del Nilo... y no por eso el desierto deja de ser de ellos...

Patagonia was invaded by Argentinos - more than once. IN FACT - the British had already colonized the Falklands before the Argentinos colonized Patagonia by slaughtering all of the indigenes that were there before the Argentinos AND the Spanish. Read history a little better too - The French and the British were BOTH occupying the Falklands before Spain came.

No one disputes that Buenos Aires belongs to the Argentines.

The British also invaded the US colonies and the actual US as a country - I don't think anyone is disputing that the US is now the rightful owner, even after the British were the ones who originally threw those indigenes out.

So what does the British having invaded Buenos Aires province twice have anything to do with land that was in no way under Argentine control, in any fashion, ever? It's an argument that makes no logical sense, but has plenty of emotion - all you have to do is start with "the British invaded" and no one from Argentina is going to listen to anything else - they are already sold.

The only thing that gave Spain any supposed legal right to anything was a Papal Bull in 1493, issued by a corrupt Spanish pope, which gave the western hemisphere to the Spanish - something which the pope had absolutely no right to give anyway. Even Spain gave back Port Egmon when they threw the British off the Falklands in 1770 because they realized that having done so was against their treaties.

 

[ElQueso]

Sorry I seem to perhaps have done what I accuse others of, hearsay.
I am sure I read it, but untill I find it back, I accept that what you said is right as that is all that I can find as well.

Well, I wasn't trying to catch you out - I can't find an actual account of either one, what you read or what I read at all; I've just found a couple of incidental statements in articles I've read on various news agencies. I was honestly hoping you'd found some reference to the actual event instead of someone referring to Cristina pulling out of the talks as a side note.

 

[perry]

The islands keep being the main issue in many posts here but as stated by many it is the 500 square kilometre exclusion zone that is unfair and the strongest issue

I do believe that Argentina will win this battle and already most of the world opinion is for them if you go on international forums . Christina is getting excellent international coverage over this issue and the joint statements from South American leaders including Chile, Brazil , and Mexico are highly encouraging. This issue unites all Argentinians and will benefit greatly the governing party.

People keep talking about self determination but if you look at the world and its history there are many cases that people have been made to move even though they were the majority and were clearly the rightful owners of the land. Two issues that come to mind was the atrocious war in Kosovo that decimated Serbia and the Cyprus issue that divided Greek and Turkish and seperated an island in half.

I did not see the world talking much about self determination for the original inhabitants who have had much better claims on their land than the Kelpers . Hypocrisy has no limits when you are the one with the military power.

 

[malbec]

Patagonia was invaded by Argentinos

Wrong. Coastal Patagonia was conquered by Spain. They founded many settlements, most of which didn't survive very long. But they were very active all along the coast.

before the Argentinos colonized Patagonia by slaughtering all of the indigenes that were there

Well, in collaboration with many british land owners (they owned - and their families still do - vast parts of Patagonia) who would pay for the ears of aborigenes.

From Wiki (the pro-UK english version): "There is some dispute as to the first European explorer to sight the islands. The islands appear on numerous Spanish and other maps beginning in the 1520s" Translated in neutral language: they were discovered by Spanish sailors.

Wikipedia says:"The first settlement on the Falkland Islands was in 1764. It was named Port St. Louis and was founded by the French navigator and military commander Louis Antoine de Bougainville on Berkeley Sound"
So, the French were the first to live on the islands.

"Also in 1766, Spain acquired the French colony, and after assuming effective control in 1767, placed the islands under a governor subordinate to the Buenos Aires colonial administration"
They were then Spanish.

"From 1776 until 1811 Spain maintained a settlement administered from Buenos Aires as part of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata. On leaving in 1811, Spain also left behind a plaque asserting her claims."

And then came the Argentines, who were then expulsed by use of the force by the British.

Not recognising there is a reason to argue is emotional fanatism.

 

[Futboljunkie]

Those countries aren´t feasible

Why not????/

 

[ElQueso]

Wrong. Coastal Patagonia was conquered by Spain. They founded many settlements, most of which didn't survive very long. But they were very active all along the coast.

Founding settlements that fail does not make a colony. Yes, they were active. And we are talking about Argentina, not Spain. Spain had a treaty with the British that also allowed them to be there.

Well, in collaboration with many british land owners (they owned - and their families still do - vast parts of Patagonia) who would pay for the ears of aborigenes.

We all know that the British, Spanish, Argentinos and North Americans (to name a few) colonial powers killed indigenes by the millions (even though Argentinos love to point that out about North Americans, how bad and evil we are - it's one reason I like to twist the knife the other way sometimes, I admit).

My point with mentioning here, however, is that the British were in possession of the Falklands BEFORE Argentina invaded Patagonia and controlled it to the point where people could actually say "yes, obviously Argentina is in control of at least some of that area" (not discounting the troubles with Chile, of course...)

Someone else made mention of the British invading Buenos Aires and that somehow had something to do with some Argentine claim (I'm not sure how, that was part of what I was saying) against the Falklands. I was lampooning that a little bit as well with the invasion of Patagonia.

From Wiki (the pro-UK english version): "There is some dispute as to the first European explorer to sight the islands. The islands appear on numerous Spanish and other maps beginning in the 1520s"

Translated in neutral language: they were discovered by Spanish sailors.

In fact, you cannot neutrally translate "There is some dispute as to the first European explorer to sight the islands" as "they were discovered by the Spanish." Sighting them does not mean discovering them, which usually entails as landing on them, mapping them, etc. Because someone put a few dots on a map as they were passing, and people think that they were referring to the Falklands (which ones - there are hundreds of islands!) doesn't mean they were discovered by the first person who MAY ahve sighted them.

I find it particularly interesting that you did NOT include the NEXT sentence in that paragraph:

"The English explorer John Davis, commander of the Desire, one of the ships belonging to Thomas Cavendish's second expedition to the New World, is recorded as having visited the islands in 1592."

Wow dude - did you not think I would go to verify what you said was there? Or do you think that particular sentence has no bearing on the matter?

Wikipedia says:"The first settlement on the Falkland Islands was in 1764. It was named Port St. Louis and was founded by the French navigator and military commander Louis Antoine de Bougainville on Berkeley Sound"
So, the French were the first to live on the islands.

Well, at least we're in agreement on something. I find it curious that YOU are just now saying that, as, if you have actually read any of the words I have written, you will recognize that I have said that the French were the first to have a colony on the islands.

"Also in 1766, Spain acquired the French colony, and after assuming effective control in 1767, placed the islands under a governor subordinate to the Buenos Aires colonial administration"
They were then Spanish.

Partially true. But what did you leave out?

"In January 1765, the British captain John Byron, unaware of the French presence, explored and claimedSaunders Island, at the western end of the group, where he named the harbour of Port Egmont. He sailed near other islands, which he also claimed for King George III. A British settlement was built at Port Egmont in 1766."

Wow. Now, imagine this - the sentence that I just quoted was actually right before the sentence that you quoted! The freaking British were there BEFORE Spain took over the french colony!!!"

"From 1776 until 1811 Spain maintained a settlement administered from Buenos Aires as part of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata. On leaving in 1811, Spain also left behind a plaque asserting her claims."

And then came the Argentines, who were then expulsed by use of the force by the British.

Not recognising there is a reason to argue is emotional fanatism.

I just have to keep laughing, internally. It's almost painful, really.

Why did you leave this out:

"Spain attacked Port Egmont, ending the British presence there in 1770. The expulsion of the British settlement brought the two countries to the brink of war, but a peace treaty allowed the British to return to Port Egmont in 1771 with neither side relinquishing sovereignty."

Now, right in front of your quote above was this:

"As a result of economic pressures resulting from the forthcoming American Revolutionary War, the United Kingdom decided to withdraw unilaterally from many of her overseas settlements, including Port Egmont, in 1774.[20][21] Upon her withdrawal in 1776 the UK left behind a plaque asserting her claims."

So, you're ok talking about Spain leaving behind a plaque maintaining their sovereignty, but the British doing the same means nothing to you? Why?

You have 4 very twisted quotes from Wikipedia, and then your last statement:

"And then came the Argentines, who were then expulsed by use of the force by the British."

You did not quote that, I notice, because that was NOT a part of the Wikipedia article. In fact, that is a VERY mistaken statement. Because when the British expelled anyone from the settlement, in 1833, it was a few Argentine soldiers that a FRENCH MAN had hired, not a contingency from the Argentine government.

In point of fact, the British pleaded with the actual colonists to stay. Most of them did, only a very few leaving. Many of those people who remained were Argentinos, but there were also many people of other nationalities as well. The colony, started by the Frenchman, had no official status whatsoever with the Argentine government.

In fact, that frenchman had tried to get Argentine government support for his colony, but was denied. He stated in many letters that he wanted someone to help protect his colony, but the Argentinos declined.

That same frenchman wrote numerous letters to the British pleading with them to come and re-occupy the islands once the revolutionary war with the US was completed.

Dude, you did exactly what your government ahs done since 1943, started by Peron himself. You pick and choose pieces of something that supports your argument in a very vague way to begin with, leave out the parts that strongly oppose your point, and make up other things to back up the previous fabrication.

Wow.

Not recognising that you are arguing from vapor and that there is no real argument other than "because we made it a law" is extremely emotional.

 

[ssr]

I do believe that Argentina will win this battle...

Win what, exactly?