The Falkland Islands

The Argentine government is very good at wanting things. Achieving them, not so much.
 
:lol: :goodjob:

Yeah, Argentina's military is practically confined to their barracks last I heard. I doubt they'd have any way of actually retaking the Falkland Islands anytime soon.

They can have Las Malvinas though, but only if we can have Tomania and Ruritania in return.
 
I don't see any way that Argentina could take the Falklands, not unless the UK was fully involved elsewhere and wasn't defending it at the time. But that doesn't mean that they can't be aggravating as hell down there.
 
Why does everyone buy into the assertions of half-arsed British newspapers that Argentina's going to invade at any minute while not even bothering to try and find out how things are down here? Don't worry, this'll collapse sooner than that.
 
Nothing's stopping Argentina from shutting the hell up about the situation. But until they do, the threat has to be taken seriously because, you know, they've already done it once in living memory.
 
Why does everyone buy into the assertions of half-arsed British newspapers that Argentina's going to invade at any minute while not even bothering to try and find out how things are down here? Don't worry, this'll collapse sooner than that.

CONSTITUTION OF THE ARGENTINE NATION

The Argentine Nation ratifies its legitimate and non-prescribing sovereignty over the Malvinas, Georgias del Sur and Sandwich del Sur Islands and over the corresponding maritime and insular zones, as they are an integral part of the National territory.

The recovery of said territories and the full exercise of sovereignty, respectful of the way of life of their inhabitants and according to the principles of international law, are a permanent and unrelinquished goal of the Argentine people.

Argentina would invade at any moment if they had any chance of succeeding.
 
and according to the principles of international law
*Ahem*.

The only invasion ever was carried out by a military dictatroship which by its very essence was inconstitutional.
 
But according to Argentine interpretation of International Law, 'British military occupation' of the islands is what is illegal; reasserting their territorial sovereignty through military means is thus surely well within their constitutional 'rights', maybe even constitutionally necessary?
 
Until 1997, the Republic of Ireland made the same claim about the North. And yet, despite the existence of a prolonged pro-Republic insurgency in the region- something which can hardly be said of the Falklands- intervention was not forthcoming. That would tend to suggest that a certain distance between nationalist chest-beating and foreign policy should be assumed unless circumstances dictate otherwise.
 
So how exactly is it not Imperialism and all the elder evils of states when a country wants to annex the home of the inhabitants of another country over and regardless of their will? If you feed me cock and bull about how deeds 180 years done and gone or coincidence of geography matter more than the lives of those who have lived the entirety of their existence in the place in question, I will snort and be very sad at the inhumanity of the sentiment. We will truly be doomed to repeat all the worst failures of our past.

Oh, and btw, welcome to CFC! Good to have you aboard.
 
So how exactly is it not Imperialism and all the elder evils of states when a country wants to annex the home of the inhabitants of another country over and regardless of their will?
The problem with popular sovereignty is that depending on how you draw the lines, you can say a country belongs to just about anybody.
 
Until 1997, the Republic of Ireland made the same claim about the North. And yet, despite the existence of a prolonged pro-Republic insurgency in the region- something which can hardly be said of the Falklands- intervention was not forthcoming. That would tend to suggest that a certain distance between nationalist chest-beating and foreign policy should be assumed unless circumstances dictate otherwise.

It depends how loud the chest-beating is - as far as I know, the Irish Republic wasn't regularly threatening to invade the Six Counties.

The problem with popular sovereignty is that depending on how you draw the lines, you can say a country belongs to just about anybody.

Indeed. We've discussed the implications of that on another thread, I think; it was quite interesting. In order to avoid that, you have to subscribe to the idea of the 'nation', which becomes problematic.
 
It depends how loud the chest-beating is - as far as I know, the Irish Republic wasn't regularly threatening to invade the Six Counties.



Indeed. We've discussed the implications of that on another thread, I think; it was quite interesting. In order to avoid that, you have to subscribe to the idea of the 'nation', which becomes problematic.

The Irish don't want to be the pariah of Europe.

In South America, however, sabre rattling against British is not something frown upon, since British are not South American.
 
Indeed. We've discussed the implications of that on another thread, I think; it was quite interesting. In order to avoid that, you have to subscribe to the idea of the 'nation', which becomes problematic.
Or reject the idea that either one has a "legitimate claim" to the island. :p
 
Top Bottom