Malvinas Spat ( United Kindgom beating war drums )

[perry]

The issue is the 500 square kilometre exclusion zone claimed by Great Britain. People are missing the point and it is not about the islands but about this crucial issue. Is there any other islands that you know that have this right?

It certainly is very lucrative for its incredible oil reserves and fishing rights. Argentina is correct to pursue this issue as it is economic and stategic. Can you imagine if Argentina did something similar close to Great Britains shores I am sure that most citizens of Great Britain would be up in arms.

 

[ElQueso]

Yes, whatever. Your posts are idiotic too, but just larger.
Talk and talk.

You need to go back to school and learn what it means to argue a point. It's about talking, yes. Sometimes it's about length in order to make one's points understood. But it's always about making points that at least have some sense behind them. I detail my reasoning. You have no reasoning. I'll talk my brand of idiotic over yours any day

Of course, a colony of british people in a territory that didnt belong to britain in first place always would say "of course we´d like to be british".

So the Spanish came and conquered the indigenes in what is now known as Argentina. Let's not talk about all the other places as well in South America, because that's not pertinent to this particular discussion.

The Falklands was inhabited by NO ONE, not even the Spanish at the time.

The French and the British were the first to land on it and claim it, and later Spain took over the French claim. With a short time period of absence from the islands on both Spain's and Britain's part, the British returned and kicked the Argentines off. Over 177 years, the British colonized it. It is thoroughly British and not the slightest bit Argentine.

Yes, of course the people who have owned that land for 177 years say they don't want to be part of Argentina.

So where's YOUR argument about Argentina's claim? Again, is it because more than 177 years ago Argentina was in possesion of the islands for about 50 years? That's a story repeated all over the world many times over and if we were going to give back all the claims to all the lands, the Argentinos and the North Americans, and the Mexicans, and many others, would all be moving back to Europe, except those of indigene descent.

Are you ready to give up Argentina in favor of the Guarani and others? Yeah, you don't really have to answer, I know what the answer is.

Second, if there were in england the idea of give the islands back, why was that? Just because the england government was at that time very charitative? In cases of territorial claims, i guess that nobody offers to give them away unless there is a serious doubt about the true rights to them.

So? There are also many more people who think that no possession of Britain's should be given up. You can listen to which side you want, but the British government is going to decide that.

Even if there were many people THERE who wanted to give up the Falklands, that doesn't give Argentina the right to claim it. It WOULD give the people who LIVE ON THE FALKLANDS the right to be their own country, perhaps, but that should be left up to the people who live there, certainly not a corrupt government like Argentina who can't even take care of its own people.

And, one last thing, people from uk didnt have any idea about malvinas, even during the war, they didnt even know their location.

Again, so? How does that give Argentina the right to claim those islands?

One thing I can guarantee you, the people who live on those islands know where they are, they KNOW they are British subjects, and the British GOVERNMENT knows about those islands and the people that live there.

Of course, your points are extremely weak and have no bearing on any claim that Argentina may have on those islands, but that won't stop you from clammering for those islands anyway. It appears that you think with emotion and not with critical thinking.

 

[malbec]

It appears that you think with emotion and not with critical thinking.

You are doing the same thing.

Whatever, politics is no exact science and possibly none of the parts involved here is totally right. It would be good to find a solution as soon as possible and not keep ignoring the subject.

 

[ElQueso]

You are doing the same thing.

Whatever, politics is no exact science and possibly none of the parts involved here is totally right. It would be good to find a solution as soon as possible and not keep ignoring the subject.

Well, I threw back some emotion towards cosaco's empty arguments, but where do you see emotion in my reasoning? I have laid out facts of possession and occupation which, regarding the sovereignty of the Falkland islands, seem to point to Argentina not having very much of a claim, and certainly not as strong a claim as Britain's.

I have asked for some reasoning as to why Argentina thinks differently and received answers like "because the islands are close" and "because we occupied them 177 years ago."

The fact that the islands are close is, indeed, a fact. The attempt to use that fact as a reason for Argentina rights to the islands is emotional because it doesn't have any more bearing on the situation than that Uruguay is across the bay from Buenos Aires and therefore should belong to Argentina as well.

The fact that Argentina did occupy the islands for a short time until 177 years ago is, indeed, a fact. But using that as a reason for Argentina's claim is emotional because it is unrealistic, the time having been so far in the past.

How were my arguments emotional?

Politics is something that groups of people use to make decisions, to come to agreements on issues that are not agreed upon. Usually, it is used to resolve issues that both sides have some good points over. I can't see that Argentina has good rights to make the claim, and just because they say the islands belong to them, because the Argentine government recently passed a law that says the Falklands are actually part of a province in Patagonia, I don't think that that is a legitimate claim and politics doesn't quite step into place here (in my opinion) because it is a false claim to begin with, since they have not had sovereignity over the islands for the last 177 years.

No one seems to want to talk about the concept of what would happen is all the Guarani and other indigene people (what are left of them) were to suddenly go to the UN and ask them for help to get Argentina off their land? It's unfortunate that Argentina (and indeed, every nation in the western hemisphere at least) conquered and practically wiped out the indigenes, but it's a done deal. It happened a long time ago and going back isn't going to solve anything.

That would be an emotional argument based on what they wish for, not present reality. It certainly would not require "politics" for Cristina to refuse the indigenes' plea, and if for some reason the UN actually took it up, do you think the Argentine government would bother with political negotiations, or would they say "no" and ignore the request?

Now, I have been talking about the sovereignity of the Falklands. Pericles, I believe it was, pointed out that there are issues at stake here related to fishing and mineral rights that Britain seems to be blocking related to Argentina's own continental/sovereign rights as well.

If there is an issue that Britain is taking too much area in international waters, that could be something completely different. I admit to not knowing enough to even have an opinion about this. But that is different from sovereignity claims over the islands themselves.

THAT would be a good thing for politics to help resolve, if there is actually an issue.

 

[ElQueso]

It certainly is very lucrative for its incredible oil reserves and fishing rights. Argentina is correct to pursue this issue as it is economic and stategic. Can you imagine if Argentina did something similar close to Great Britains shores I am sure that most citizens of Great Britain would be up in arms.

BTW - if Argentina were to go to some of the islands in the Atlantic that currently belong to Britain (can't remember their names, but very popular places for British citizens to go on vacations, near Spain, North Africa, etc), that once belonged to Spain (centuries ago!), and were to invade them, you're damned right the British citizens would be up in arms. Why wouldn't they be?

But that's not what happened with the Falklands. Britain has been in possession of these islands for 177 years - no one seems to want to talk about that fact.

As I mentioned previously, if they feel aggrieved that Britain is taking too much surrounding territory, more than international law says they have a right to with possession of those islands, yes, that is something that should definitely be discussed.

 

[cosaco]

Yes, to talk a lot just to make people understood YOUR point, or what you want people to believe but a large and pseudo intelectual exposition of the "facts".
Well, Elqueso, do you have any relatives from Paraguay, that doesnt like argentina very much, dont you?
A couple of things.
As far as i know, guaranies are not making any claims about anything.
About the talkings about UK giving the islands back to Argentina, you understand the point i made, but you play fool and go back about the "self determination". How can you possibly even think to give away a territory that belongs to you, when someone else claim it? That means that you know that you have no right at all.
You say it right when you talk about the right of the people living there about having their own country, wich is England. If they are british living there (due to an invasion), what auto determinacion are you talking about? If they are british, they can go to their country UNITED KINGDOM.

Sorry, but this confuses me "So? There are also many more people who think that no possession of Britain's should be given up. You can listen to which side you want, but the British government is going to decide that." You say it in a general way including, let´s say, London? Or just about the Malvinas? Or what? Or is just pure imperialism behind that?

 

[cosaco]

But that's not what happened with the Falklands. Britain has been in possession of these islands for 177 years - no one seems to want to talk about that fact.


Again and again, non stop "the 177 years". But it was never accepted by Argentina.

 

[Denver]

ElQueso:

Your posts are always well-reasoned and well-articulated.

-And I applaud your stamina.

Neil

 

[ElQueso]

But that's not what happened with the Falklands. Britain has been in possession of these islands for 177 years - no one seems to want to talk about that fact.


Again and again, non stop "the 177 years". But it was never accepted by Argentina.

Well, do you think the Guaranis accepted Argentine rule or were forced into it? Do you think the Mexicans wanted to give up Texas, or were forced into it? Do you think the Aztecs wanted to give up their part of Mexico or were forced into it? Do you think the Apaches and the Comanches and so on and so forth wanted to give up their claim to parts of the US?

The fact that it was never accepted by Argentina is an emotional argument related to Argentina's claim and has little or no bearing to the fact that Britain's claim is very much stronger than Argentina's claim because, quite non-emotionally, they have occupied those islands for such a long time.

 

[fedecc]

The fact that it was never accepted by Argentina is an emotional argument related to Argentina's claim and has little or no bearing to the fact that Britain's claim is very much stronger than Argentina's claim because, quite non-emotionally, they have occupied those islands for such a long time.

The "time" argument is just as ridiculous or "emotional" as the geographic argument. Theft is theft no matter how long a person has owned something or how long the thief has kept the thing. The only difference here is that states last longer than persons and can pursue causes for longer periods of time.

Well, do you think the Guaranis accepted Argentine rule or were forced into it? Do you think the Mexicans wanted to give up Texas, or were forced into it? Do you think the Aztecs wanted to give up their part of Mexico or were forced into it? Do you think the Apaches and the Comanches and so on and so forth wanted to give up their claim to parts of the US?

For whatever the reasons you belive "natives" accepted Argentine rule, they accepted it. Argentina has not, in 177, accepted the UK taking the islands.

Besides, the only reason why you argue this is becasuse of the war, which is the only reason why we don't own the islands today. All historical, geographical, judicial arguments have long ago been recognized in many cases, by Brittain itself, to favor Argentina. Like i posted before there were many negotiations before the war to transfer sovereignty, which didn't prosper because of petty politics in some cases or the intransigence of Argentina. But few officials before the war argued that the transfer of sovereignty was the only real and permanent solution to the conflict.