imperialman
Admiral
I don't believe that matters, the Falkands as a community of British (Scottish and Welsh) setllers predate the founding of Argentina by many decades.
Yet Another Falklands Flare Up
- Thread starter imperialman
- Start date
I don't believe that matters, the Falkands as a community of British (Scottish and Welsh) setllers predate the founding of Argentina by many decades.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
The US has no claim to Cuba and does not wish to pursue one. Many of the island territories the US owns are uninhabited. Your point here makes no sense.
What does this have to do with the Falkland Islanders themselves wishing to keep the status quo?
Virote_Considon
The Great Dictator
Not going to happen. Argentina's immediate neighbours (especially Chile, Brazil, Uruguay) are weary of Argentina's territorial ambitions both with regards to the Falklands and beyond. The rest of Latin America is reluctant at best to support Argentina's claims, with the exception of Chavez's Venezuela and Castro's Cuba.
"Weaker nations"Not that I'm suggesting surrendering to terrorism. Okay, I am.The U.S. should never surrender to terrorism, but weaker nations should consider such an option.
And yet with all the military technology and power in the world, the US is still considering hightailing it out of Afghanistan because of a few masked bandits
Your Britainphobia is laughable, yanqui doodle
That's what the Arabs said in 1948. And 1967. And 1973...
The US has no claim to Cuba?
"Right to self-determination".
No it didn't. Hong Kong was on a 99 year lease and was given back at the end of that lease. The Falklands were never "leased" from Argentina. Argentina has never owned them full stop.
imperialman
Admiral
Not going to happen. Argentina's immediate neighbours (especially Chile, Brazil, Uruguay) are weary of Argentina's territorial ambitions both with regards to the Falklands and beyond. The rest of Latin America is reluctant at best to support Argentina's claims, with the exception of Chavez's Venezuela and Castro's Cuba.
"Weaker nations"
And yet with all the military technology and power in the world, the US is still considering hightailing it out of Afghanistan because of a few masked bandits
Your Britainphobia is laughable, yanqui doodle
That's what the Arabs said in 1948. And 1967. And 1973...
The US has no claim to Cuba?
"Right to self-determination".
No it didn't. Hong Kong was on a 99 year lease and was given back at the end of that lease. The Falklands were never "leased" from Argentina. Argentina has never owned them full stop.
Fully agree.
imperialman
Admiral
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/u...ghly-unlikely-to-invade-the-falklands-1534122
IT is highly unlikely Argentina will attempt to invade the Falkland Islands, defence minister Andrew Robathan said today.
He said the Argentinian military was not the same power as it was under General Leopoldo Galtieri, when the Falklands were invaded in 1982.
The UK government retains the ability to increase its military presence on the islands ahead of next month's referendum on whether they should remain under British rule.
There are currently four typhoon aircraft, a company of troops and a guard ship, in the region.
Robathan added: "There are also submarines capable of defending the islands." But he would not comment on their exact whereabouts.
The defence minister went on: "We all very much hope, and indeed expect, that the referendum will enforce the relationship between Britain and the Falkland Islands.
"I think it is highly unlikely that the Argentinians will invade the Falkland Islands, not least because there is a clause in their constitution I understand which specifically excludes invading the Falkland Islands by force.
"Since the days of General Galtieri there is a very definite separation between the civilian government and the armed forces and certainly it does not appear that their armed forces are well equipped at the moment."
Tory MP Colonel Bob Stewart, a former UN commander in Bosnia, said the Argentinians would be "pretty incapable" of invading the Falklands.
IT is highly unlikely Argentina will attempt to invade the Falkland Islands, defence minister Andrew Robathan said today.
He said the Argentinian military was not the same power as it was under General Leopoldo Galtieri, when the Falklands were invaded in 1982.
The UK government retains the ability to increase its military presence on the islands ahead of next month's referendum on whether they should remain under British rule.
There are currently four typhoon aircraft, a company of troops and a guard ship, in the region.
Robathan added: "There are also submarines capable of defending the islands." But he would not comment on their exact whereabouts.
The defence minister went on: "We all very much hope, and indeed expect, that the referendum will enforce the relationship between Britain and the Falkland Islands.
"I think it is highly unlikely that the Argentinians will invade the Falkland Islands, not least because there is a clause in their constitution I understand which specifically excludes invading the Falkland Islands by force.
"Since the days of General Galtieri there is a very definite separation between the civilian government and the armed forces and certainly it does not appear that their armed forces are well equipped at the moment."
Tory MP Colonel Bob Stewart, a former UN commander in Bosnia, said the Argentinians would be "pretty incapable" of invading the Falklands.
King Kalmah
Magyar Madness
The US has no claim to Cuba?
I reviewed my history and while we did help them throw off the yoke of Spanish rule and provided weaponry for the Bay of Pigs... we don't have any claim besides Guantanamo Bay.I guess all the Casinos and other real estate was forfeited to the Communists.
Hmm I always had figured that Argentinians were the majority on the island,but given the information I have gained as of late...I retract my previous statements...
so we all learned something and there is no war....YAY!
however there is this...
Puerto Rico (you know the story)
U.S. Virgin Islands (lots of people)
Guam(inhabited)
American Samoa(inhabited)
Northern Mariana Islands
Midway Islands(naval personal)
You are right about the rest of the islands...they are uninhabited
Baker Island,
Howland Island,
Jarvis Island,
Johnston Atoll,
Kingman Reef,
Bajo Nuevo Bank,
Serranilla Bank,
Navassa Island(Haiti has a contested claim)
Akka
Moody old mage.
Actually, I would say it's not even a question of self-determination. This one is constantly highlighted to give more credibility and legitimacy, but it's a misleading one.
The core principle is the one you quoted first : territorial sovereignty. Even if the Falklanders wanted to be Argentines, this wouldn't be per se a legitimate reason for the UK to relinquish the island (the deciding reason would be : it's too small, too irrelevant and too far away to bother with all the troubles it would bring ; but it would be a practical reason, not a principle one).
It's not because a bunch of guys move to a part of your country territory and decide they want to be independant that it measn your country has a duty to cede this territory part.
The UK got the Falklands in 1830. Nobody contested the claim for 100 years. It's part of UK territory now, tough luck Argentina, too late to start whining now.
That is the reality of international politics, perhaps, but not how things 'should' be done, as it were.
Akka
Moody old mage.
Why not ?
A nation is a shared property of everyone included inside.
I recognize the complexity of real world, the past and differing ethnic/cultural sharing same borders, of course, but on a general principle, I don't see why a group of people could suddendly decide to grab a part of this shared property and claim it "ours" and leave with it.
There is, again, lots of special cases, but, again, on general principle, I don't see the legitimacy for a part of the country to declare independance/autonomy without a full, nation-wide referendum.
Because it's not shared; you only have a claim to your little bit of it. The English have no claim to Scotland simply because we live as part of the same political entity - if they want to go, and take their land with them, so be it; it's not our decision.
Benefactor
Beneficial
The English might not have a claim, but what about the British? Scotland and England may be different things but they are both part of Britain after all.
My point is that there are no 'British'; otherwise, we end up with the conclusion that in 1776 the people living in British North America were citizens of the British Empire, just as people living in Kent were, and therefore people in Kent should have had a say as to whether America was entitled to declare independence. Clearly, this is ridiculous: the same principle applies transferred to smaller distances.
Akka
Moody old mage.
Disagree on the "not shared" thing. Of course it is. My house is part of my nation, I can't just randomly declare that I'm a nation-state and secede.
A bunch of people can't suddendly come, settle my region, and then declare they can secede.
If someone suddendly people in Liverpool wants to create the Republic of Independant Liverpool, they can't either.
Akka
Moody old mage.
If they manage to convince the entire country, then it's basically a referendum where the nation agree, and it's legitimate.
What I meant is that if suddendly Liverpool decide to secede, it will not be regarded as legitimate just because a bunch of people in the area think it is.
Liverpool could become national football champions again.
Well, I disagree, actually. I think if the vast majority of Liverpudlians desired to be independent, then they should be allowed to be so. Obviously there is a 'common goods' argument - if the area is so small that it would inevitably benefit from the benefits of being in Britain without paying British taxes, then that's different. For example, if I chose to secede on my own, my house would still be lit by British street lamps, still be protected for the most part from crime by the British police, still be protected in times of war by the British armed forces - so the British government would be entitled to say 'hang on, no deal, you pay for this lot like everyone else'.
