Malvinas Spat ( United Kindgom beating war drums )
- Thread starter cabrera
- Start date
ElQueso said:
Now that you mention it, didn't Argentina only began charting, settling and claiming Patagonia in the late 1800s? I mean the borders with Chile were not even settled until the 1990s!
I also understand Argentina was close to war with Chile (both military dictatorships) just a couple of years before the war. Maybe the Generals chickened out at the prospect of being promptly invaded through the Andes from north to south and decided to pick on not only a more sensible and remote but also a more prestigious enemy?
Maps I see of the Spanish Empire at the time of the several Revolutions depict the border at just a few miles south of Buenos Aires, not even the bulk of the Pampas were claimed, nor Patagonia nor Chaco. Actually at the time of Independence Argentina (the United Provinces) didn't even have an ocean coast!
Rubbish.
There were some border disputes which wers settle in the '90s, but don't exaggerate here (too much Argentine influence, huh?), they were only focal disputes. The border was mostly settled.
The Argentine Navy was ready to attack, but a storm first and the Pope's envoy later avoided it. Analysts have agreed that at that time the Argentine Military was stronger than Chile's (which is not the case today). Anyways, I am glad nothing happened. Chile and Argentina slved their problems negotiating, they were thought they were right, but a solution was found and today there is no dispute left (other than some ref decisions whenever we play fútbol). The same thing - I expect - will happen one day with the Malvinas.
It is easy to play the brave when you are stronger - but someone else has also chickened and given up Hong Kong. Only because they were more powerfull?
pandulf.ironhead
Registered
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 66
- Likes
- 7
England possesses the Falklands by right of war, if Argentina wants them back it must become stronger.
ElQueso said:What Orwellian said, and also, did you notice that those maps are more than two years old? Have you seen the recent evidence that that was as far as the melting went and the trend has reversed? I'm tired right now and want to go to bed, so I can't find the links, but they're there
I'm not interested in what's happened in the last few weeks or months (weather) or whether the last year or so have been chilly. To track climate change, you have to take a long view. To say there's zero evidence that antarctica might end up like canada or finland when pretty much ALL the evidence suggest big ice thinning over the last 30-50 years is pushing the concepts of logical deduction to stretching point.
I think what is likely by 2100 going by current (meaning over last half century btw, not since last Thursday!) melt rates is that antarctica might well end up looking like greenland, an icy interior with habitable fringes around the coastline. All these countries are jockying for position (like the russians planting flags on seabed) for a very good reason.
it's like a game of Risk where a new section of board is about to be made available.
by the way, the map I linked to was 6 months old. If that's not recent enough for you:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091125230727.htm
tangobob
Registered
- Joined
- May 26, 2007
- Messages
- 1,230
- Likes
- 254
pandulf.ironhead said:
Right on lets have a fight..... I think you should be back in the school yard.
There is only one answer. Reemster carp gave it in another post
What Argentina needs is an indepedent judiciary, a more open economy, less government interference in business and heavy investments in infrastructure and the educational system.
Only then would the people of the Falklands have any desire to be Argentine.
Throwing arguments about Ireland and other British Colonies or Ex colonies is fatuous. We live in a more modern age where peoples have the right to self determination in most of the world. Even Austrailia would be allowed to leave the commonwhelth if the people there so desired.
As has rightly been said here Britain has a chequered history of brutal and stupid treatment in its dealings with the colonies. The Boor war and the stupid way we dealt with the Easter uprising are two of the more recent examples, but here we are talking of people who want to stay British.
What would you have us do? tell them they must now be Argentine?
or perhaps deport them all to the British isles, where they can all live in council houses drawing dole money because there is no land for them to carry on their lifestyle?
malbec said:
I don't know, it's an interesting subject: When was Mar del Plata founded? Who was Argentina's Louis and Clark, and what year was it when he discovered that glacier?
I really don't know the status of uncharted territories in the 18th and 19th century: As far as I can see from the maps Patagonia was fair game and anyone could have established either a new nation or a new colony there, but again the same could be said about "the Oregon" at that time.
Only funny thing: Indians lived in Patagonia but the first time the Falklands were stepped by humans, it was by Europeans. Nothing can be more fair game than settling a truly uninhabited rock.
This apparent stupidity from both governments might as well be a way to distract or delay the more pressing issue about Antarctica.
Matt84 said:
Latin America backs Argentina as Britain begins Falklands oil quest
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7036764.ece
Argentina cemented a Latin American front over the Falklands today as a British oilrig began drilling in the disputed seas around the islands.
Regional leaders at the Rio Group summit in Mexico were expected to sign up for a resolution backing Argentina in its escalating row with Britain after Brazil and Chile pledged their support.
“The English are still threatening Argentina. Things have changed. We are no longer in 1982,” Hugo Chavez warned. “If conflict breaks out, be sure Argentina will not be alone like it was back then.”
