The Falkland Islands

I love your moral certitude. Why bother coming to a thread on this matter then, other than to tell others that they're wrong and you're right? You don't see any complexity in the situation at all?

There are cases which have evidence in favor of one side, so overwhelmingly you can say with the utmost confidance which side is right. It is possible the other side of the argument is complete BS and we can call them out on it - without "convincing ourselves" (your words) we are right and without doing any of this: "but we still always manage to cherry-pick the facts to suit our perspective, and always manage to show how we are in the right, and the other side's views and claims are banal, foolish, or evil. " Sometimes one side is morally right.
 
The UK should just give a big middle finger to Argentina and fully incorporate the Falklands into the UK. They could throw in Gibralter as well while they are at it.

One thing to say about the Falklands, at least Argentina has a better, and less hypocritical, case then whenever the Spanish get pissy over Gibralter (not that that is saying much).

First off, it's Gibraltar, not Gibralter.

Secondly, are you serious?
 
Ceuta and Melilla

And Olivença.

And how is it relevant? If Spain renounced their sovereignty there, how would it affect the UK?

The way I see it, Argentina never had ownership of the Falklands. Spain, however, owned Gibraltar for centuries. Menorca too, but they managed to get that back, otherwise the Brits would still be there claiming it to be part of their Empire.
 
Spain, however, owned Gibraltar for centuries.
See Treaty of Utrecht. As far as I am aware "perpetuity" does not expire after 300 years.

Spains only claim is based on it threatening their territorial integrity.
 
I really dont get how this is an issue. Both nations are democratic, let the citizens of the location decide and leave it at that. Even if the Falklands were gained wrongly, a second wrong of forcing an unwanted change a couple hundred years later is just as bad if not worse. Same goes for Gibraltar.
 
See Treaty of Utrecht. As far as I am aware "perpetuity" does not expire after 300 years.
The Treaty of Utrecht restored the territory of the Spanish Empire prior to the War of the Spanish Succession, but it's debated as to whether the Falkland Islands were actually part of the Spanish Empire in 1701. The claim that they were involves rather nebulous logic of "near a bit that was near a bit that was near a bit that we owned", which the British, for their part, never accepted. Simple fact is that, in 1701, the islands weren't under anybody's control, so any unilateral claims to possession had no consequence outside of the imagination of the claimant.
 
If Argentina started arguing for the resource rights around the island while respecting the will of its people citizenship wise Id have a lot more respect for them.
 
The Treaty of Utrecht restored the territory of the Spanish Empire prior to the War of the Spanish Succession, but it's debated as to whether the Falkland Islands were actually part of the Spanish Empire in 1701. The claim that they were involves rather nebulous logic of "near a bit that was near a bit that was near a bit that we owned", which the British, for their part, never accepted. Simple fact is that, in 1701, the islands weren't under anybody's control, so any unilateral claims to possession had no consequence outside of the imagination of the claimant.

You may want to look at what I replied to.
 
30 years ago today...

"14 June 1982 - British forces enter Stanley

White flags are seen flying over Port Stanley, and by noon British forces have advanced to the outskirts of the Falklands capital. Argentine troops are fleeing in disarray, General Mario Menendez surrenders to Major General Jeremy Moore, and 9,800 Argentine troops put down their arms. British troops march into Stanley. RIP to the fallen on both sides."
 
Really constructive of you feller.
 
Well, it's pretty clear they aren't willing to risk another war over it. They've pretty much given up on *that*

There are tons of border disputes around the world, it doesn't help to suggest that there should be a war over every single claim.. especially when the 2 parties already fought a war and don't really want to fight another one.

edit: I wish we had an Argentinian on here to give us the other side of the story because everyone on here clearly supports the British pov

My reading of similar thread on other websites gives me the impression that the pro-Argentian side really is based on jingo, since it was a (now fallen) military junta that ordered the invasion. I'd suggest looking around the 'net for such debates. Even things like what ship was actually damaged is still argued on the 'net.

The British claim to de jure sovereignty dates from 1690

I'm kind of curious what this from the OP is citing from. Wikipedia puts the island as being ruled by France initially, sold to Spain, kept under papal bull, and then legallized under the Treaty of Utrecht (treaty between Spain and Great Britain).



--------------

IMHO, self-rule and democracy avoid unnecessary wars, and are preferred even when there's a mixed population.
 
I'm kind of curious what this from the OP is citing from. Wikipedia puts the island as being ruled by France initially, sold to Spain, kept under papal bull, and then legallized under the Treaty of Utrecht (treaty between Spain and Great Britain).

IMHO, self-rule and democracy avoid unnecessary wars, and are preferred even when there's a mixed population.

Wiki has the 1690 thing as "The British first landed on the Falklands in 1690, when Captain John Strong sailed through Falkland Sound, naming this passage of water after Anthony Cary, 5th Viscount of Falkland, the First Lord of the Admiralty at that time. The British were keen to settle the islands as they had the potential to be a strategic naval base for passage around Cape Horn."

As for the Papal Bull, IIRC it was a mutual agreement between Spain and Portugal and Utrecht only applied to settled lands.

The islanders plan a referendum on their status in 2013, hopefully that settles it.
 
Seriously, didn't Argentina already put these claims through a trial by combat? Res Judicata now.
 
Afraid not, since the Argentine arguments pointedly ignore the idea of self-determination - because they know full well that the Falklanders don't want them anyway.

Yep, see Spain re Gibraltar.

"The referendum was invalid because the British and/or local governments decided upon it. And our reason for claiming the lands supersedes self-determination."
 
Self determination should never be superseded when democratic governments are involved, these petty moves by countries like Spain and Argentina over territories that havent been theirs in centuries and have populations made up of the other nation's people not theirs are pathetic. I really dont know how anyone but blind nationalists could support these sort of territory claims.
 
I think you have put your finger on it right there. The jingo is strong even today in democracies. It is in America and the world knows it. Anyone who thinks the rest of the world is immune is a hopeless idealist at best :(
 
Top Bottom