The Falkland Islands

kramerfan86 · Feb 7, 2012

True, my apologies t hat Argentina wasnt around. I believe Britain and France both claimed it, then Spain inherited France's claim. Historically in that 1700-early 1800s period was there ever an owner with a truly justifiable claim? To me it doesnt really seem so, definitely not a strong enough justification to force the current citizens into a new country IMO.

Quackers · Feb 7, 2012

The historical argument is totally irrelevent anyway.
The majority on the Falkland Islands consider themselves to be British and wish to remain so.
Case closed.

Takhisis · Feb 7, 2012

imperialman said:
The raid of the USS Lexington in December 1831 combined with the United Provinces assertions of sovereignty were the spur for the British to establish a military presence on the islands.

On 2 January 1833, Captain James Onslow, of the warship HMS Clio, arrived at the Spanish settlement at Port Louis to request that the Argentine flag be replaced with the British one, and for the Argentine administration to leave the islands.

So, the Brits didn't give a damn about the place until the Americans started showing an interest in the place. How patriotic of them.

imperialman said:
After their return in 1833, the British began moves to begin a fully-fledged colony on the islands, initially based upon the settlers remaining in Port Louis (Argentine often claim these settlers were removed yet there is zero evidence for this).

Oh, so the colony is based on Argentine population then, instead of the fully British descent London's claimed?

imperialman said:
In 1841, General Rosas offered to relinquish any Argentine territorial claims in return for relief of debts owed to interests in the City of London. The British Government chose to ignore the offer. Silly us for ignoring that eh?

So it's a soverignty claim from the 1840s.

Quackers said:
The historical argument is totally irrelevent anyway.
The majority on the Falkland Islands consider themselves to be British and wish to remain so.
Case closed.

Why wasn't this same principle applied in 1833? This just reeks of hypocrisy, my trouser-wearing friend.

bhsup · Feb 7, 2012

Okay, going by historical claims, Argentina needs to get its ass back under Spanish control post haste. It's really only fair.

Ajidica · Feb 7, 2012

Spain should also surrended to Italy, it is only fair.

bhsup · Feb 7, 2012

Yeah, but...Italy? Modern day Italy?

Dachs · Feb 7, 2012

Ajidica said:
Spain should also surrended to Italy, it is only fair.

Make that either Israel or Tunisia instead of Italy and we have a deal

wilycoyote · Feb 8, 2012

Quackers said:
The historical argument is totally irrelevent anyway.
The majority on the Falkland Islands consider themselves to be British and wish to remain so.
Case closed.

This is exactly why Texas isn't Mexican anymore. However, in that case, the Mexicans invited the Americans in.

I am sympathetic to the argument that since the inhabitants want the British, then they should have them.

If not that argument, I'll fall back on my other argument. If the Argentinians want those islands, let them try to take them.

say1988 · Feb 8, 2012

So it's a soverignty claim from the 1840s.

One party offering to relinquish its claim has nothing to do with the other party`s claim.

Why wasn't this same principle applied in 1833? This just reeks of hypocrisy, my trouser-wearing friend.

It was 1833, not 2012. Things were done differently 180 years ago.
Besides, as people that had knowingly enterred British territory (the leaser asked British permission) just two years earlier I don`t have any sympathy for them .

imperialman · Feb 8, 2012

Takhisis said:
So, the Brits didn't give a damn about the place until the Americans started showing an interest in the place. How patriotic of them.

"combined with the United Provinces assertions of sovereignty were the spur for the British to establish a military presence on the islands."

Takhisis said:
Oh, so the colony is based on Argentine population then, instead of the fully British descent London's claimed?

I believe there were around 30 Argentine settlers by the time Britain returned to their territory. Where has London claimed otherwise though?

Takhisis said:
So it's a soverignty claim from the 1840s.
Why wasn't this same principle applied in 1833? This just reeks of hypocrisy, my trouser-wearing friend.

Britain had claimed the land since 1765 I believe.

Quackers · Feb 8, 2012

Takhisis said:
Why wasn't this same principle applied in 1833? This just reeks of hypocrisy, my trouser-wearing friend.

As Say said things were done differently almost 200 years ago.
..and why should the mistakes of governments almost 200 years ago have any bearing on the morality or the hypocrisy of modern day governments? They are not the same people.

Anyway, the history behind this is all irrelevent. It's up to the people to decide what nationality and which state they wish to belong too today. At the moment it is Britain.

Virote_Considon · Feb 8, 2012

Dachs said:
I guess you must have been on hallucinogens during the eighties.

Bah. More Commonwealth countries were in on the invasion than actually being invaded, smarty-pants.

Dachs · Feb 8, 2012

Virote_Considon said:
Bah. More Commonwealth countries were in on the invasion than actually being invaded, smarty-pants.

That's an irrelevant distinction. The point is, the US invaded a Commonwealth nation, and London whined about it and then did cock-all about it.

say1988 · Feb 8, 2012

I would note that there is a difference between an independent country with the same Monarch and an overseas territory of the UK.

But the UK can hardly scratch the US.

Dachs · Feb 8, 2012

say1988 said:
I would note that there is a difference between an independent country with the same Monarch and an overseas territory of the UK.

Sure. I wasn't saying the analogy made sense.

Virote_Considon · Feb 8, 2012

Well, I think to rectify the situation we need to make a Grenadian citizen go to D.C. and symbolically burn something to the ground. Perhaps a building due for demolishment already.

Ayn Rand · Feb 8, 2012

Takhisis said:
Argentina as successor state to the Spanish Empire would inherit it anyway, right?

The Spanish Empire was disbanded, not handed down to a successor State. And the Falklands weren't theirs to give away anyway.

Traitorfish · Feb 8, 2012

Ayn Rand said:
The Spanish Empire was disbanded, not handed down to a successor State.

When was this? Far as I know, it was just whittled away between the 1810 Revolutions and the African independence wars.

GinandTonic · Feb 8, 2012

The island belongs to the islanders. There view is clear. This is the first principal and foundation stone of international law. Where is the room for debate?

imperialman · Feb 9, 2012

Looks like the row has notched itself up a bit.

Falkland Islands newspaper calls Cristina Fernández de Kirchner a *insert naughty word*

Thousands of complaints after insult that followed Fernández accusing Britain of militarising south Atlantic islands

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/09/cristina-fernandez-de-kirchner--penguin-news

The Falkland Islands

Deity

The Frog

¡Patria y vida!

Deity

High Quality Person

Deity

Hero of the Soviet Union

King

Deity

Admiral

The Frog

The Great Dictator

Hero of the Soviet Union

Deity

Hero of the Soviet Union

The Great Dictator

Deity

The Tighnahulish Kid

Saphire w/ Schweps + Lime

Admiral

Similar threads