Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Does argentina have a valid claim to the falklands?

Announcements Posted on
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tut.exe)
    the same thing could be said about the basic principles used to make boat float 4000 years ago is still being used by carriers to float on water.

    Youre wrong, ski-jump ramps are far less complex and far 'easier to pull off' so much so that the russians managed to reduce the MIG29 take off speed 260 km/h to 130 km/h. all you need for a ski-jump platform is a plane that can do the task with enough payload to do the mission.
    Ah now you are two different methods, there is STOBAR which is what the Russians use and the Chinese and Indians will be shortly which is a combination of both CATOBAR, the US and French method, and STOVL which is the British method (Also used by Spain, Italy and sometimes Thailand). STOBAR is considerably easier as the aircraft are usually much larger and therefore the aircraft have a long run up, compared to CATOBAR it could be said to be easier however considering that no Western nation has chosen the method, for comparison purposes, and that they are not in routine service (The Russian carrier very rarely sails with a full air arm) its quite hard to declare either way. Overall though the STOVL system for the pure complexity of the aircraft required is the most difficult to conduct.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by @Sam)
    Ah now you are two different methods, there is STOBAR which is what the Russians use and the Chinese and Indians will be shortly which is a combination of both CATOBAR, the US and French method, and STOVL which is the British method (Also used by Spain, Italy and sometimes Thailand). STOBAR is considerably easier as the aircraft are usually much larger and therefore the aircraft have a long run up, compared to CATOBAR it could be said to be easier however considering that no Western nation has chosen the method, for comparison purposes, and that they are not in routine service (The Russian carrier very rarely sails with a full air arm) its quite hard to declare either way. Overall though the STOVL system for the pure complexity of the aircraft required is the most difficult to conduct.
    STOBAR uses ski jump what are you talking about? the only difference with the STOVL is the arrested landing. The complexity of VTOL landing is the time limitation of harriers due to how fast Harriers burn fuel when they're performing a hover which usually only become problematic with high winds.
    Just because the varyag class has longer run up doesnt make it any more easier, it's long because of the fact that they're designed to fly and land MiG planes which are heavy big planes.
    With landing using arresting cables, there are more things to consider. Pilots would have to learn how to land their plane by catching one of the 3 arresting cables on the deck otherwise they'd overshoot. This type of landing is far more difficult, that is why planes accelerate at the last minute instead of decelerate when attempting to land so if they miss they can just fly back up again otherwise they end up on water. Not only that, but with swelling seas, it means that the deck of the carrier would be going up and down, which can cause the plane trying to land to overshoot missing the arresting cables, or as one of the F18s did, hit the deck as the deck suddenly pitched up the moment the F18 was about to land.
    I dont even know what you mean by the pure complexity of the aircraft required for STOVL. They're not complex, theyre just hard to setup for them to have enough performance and payload to do a required mission.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    They have as much claim to the Faulklands as Spain do to Gibralta.

    None aside from proximity.

    Like Gibralta, the overwhelming majority of the islands population want to stay with Britain. Argentina evidently have no interest in public opinion.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I just want to apologise as an American for Clinton's recent comment. The Falklands, and not the Malvinas, if there is a God, will be forever the UK's. Besides, if Argentina was serious, why don't they put it to a referendum for the Falklanders like the Saar valley did after WWI.
    • 13 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pax Amerifauna)
    I just want to apologise as an American for Clinton's recent comment. The Falklands, and not the Malvinas, if there is a God, will be forever the UK's. Besides, if Argentina was serious, why don't they put it to a referendum for the Falklanders like the Saar valley did after WWI.
    No way would Argentina do that, they know they would be guaranteed to lose. I think there has been a referendum, or at least a pool, asking whether they want to remain a British territory. It was something like 99.7% voted to remain British.
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Magnentius)
    Whatever may be the case, it is felt in Argentina, as is indicated by their referral to it as 'Las Malvinas', that some injustice has taken place, and that the land is rightly theirs.

    I do not think that there is an honest, practical concern for the Islands in Argentina. Rather, it seems to be used politically as a method of engendering support in order to shore up political problems at home.

    Your argument that:

    "If it was then could france not claim the channel islands? could america not claim bermuda for example?"

    is not quite analogous to the situation since you have chosen places which have a close proximity to each-other - France being near to the channel islands, for example.

    In the case of the Falklands, the sheer distance between them and Britain has perpetuated claims that we are an alien force in the region, and that therefore we have no sovereign claim to the land. Although i do not argue that that is the case.
    Feeling aggrieved does not mean that you have a valid claim to anything. Again all you have reiterated is a geography argument, which would not dictate that Argentina would necessarily have first dibs on the Falklands even if proximity were a valid sovereignty argument (which it is not). Many american territories in the pacific are miles away from the US homeland and no one complains about them?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Psyk)
    No way would Argentina do that, they know they would be guaranteed to lose. I think there has been a referendum, or at least a pool, asking whether they want to remain a British territory. It was something like 99.7% voted to remain British.
    That was the Gibraltar poll back in 2002 that coincided with the British Overseas Territory Act (2002) as part of the post-Empire legislation that reorganised the territories.

    The Falkland have not voted in a direct referendum and when it has been suggested they have been appalled at the suggestion regularly having the local government over turn it whenever there is another phase of war warmongering. As far as I am aware the last major calls for such a referendum occurred back in 2009 to coincide with the new Falklands Islands Constitution but was dismissed by Thorogood and the Legislative Assembly.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LiveFastDieYoung)
    Feeling aggrieved does not mean that you have a valid claim to anything. Again all you have reiterated is a geography argument, which would not dictate that Argentina would necessarily have first dibs on the Falklands even if proximity were a valid sovereignty argument (which it is not). Many american territories in the pacific are miles away from the US homeland and no one complains about them?
    The chinese complain.

    You silly person.
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Magnentius)
    The chinese complain.

    You silly person.
    not a response. If i complain about something that does not necessitate i have a valid claim. That claim must be established based on reasoned argument not on the fact that I have a complaint.

    If i said i utter believe I have a right to your house, that wouldn't make it so would it?
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LiveFastDieYoung)
    was just reading this news story:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16280613



    Am I missing something or is that the long and short of it?
    One thing that should be mentioned here, if no one else has, is that prior to the previous falklands conflict ,the ' Thatcher' govt announced big naval cuts,including the withdrawal of hms endurance-our south atlantic 'guard' ship. This was a big 'come on down' signal to argentina ,along with some diplomatic activity that suggested that we weren't really bothered with the falklands. Strangely ,just prior to Iraq's invasion of kuwait ,there was some diplomatic activity that suggested that america wouldn't be bothered about such an invasion.Not that I believe in conspiracies! This latest bout of sabre rattling from Argentina seems to have followed on from ,yet again, a tory government's very public announcements to cut our military,in particular the harrier/carrier force. History tells us that this may not have been a good idea ,or even a cost-cutting one in the long term.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pax Amerifauna)
    I just want to apologise as an American for Clinton's recent comment. The Falklands, and not the Malvinas, if there is a God, will be forever the UK's. Besides, if Argentina was serious, why don't they put it to a referendum for the Falklanders like the Saar valley did after WWI.
    It's nothing new from the Obama administration though, he doesn't have much love for the UK and has routinely ignored it or bashed it (frequently calling BP 'British Petroleum' even though it's been an Anglo-American company for years now). He can't get over the whole anti-colonialism thing even though the Falklands is a matter of national self determination. As much as I like the guy he's probably the most anti-British American President there has been since WW2. He'd much rather score points with the Latin American nations than buddy up with declining Europe.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LiveFastDieYoung)
    not a response. If i complain about something that does not necessitate i have a valid claim. That claim must be established based on reasoned argument not on the fact that I have a complaint.

    If i said i utter believe I have a right to your house, that wouldn't make it so would it?
    I must have misunderstood you when you said:

    'Many american territories in the pacific are miles away from the US homeland and no one complains about them?'
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    The fact of the matter is this. The UK as whole will only now give up its remnants of our former empire if the people there specifically want to be independence. As like Gibraltar, the residents of the Falklands firmly want to stay under British rule by quite a large majority. As such we aren't ever just going to allow Argentina to take over until the day that the residents of the Falklands want to leave. As for who has the right to own it, the simple fact of the real world is that we won the war, we have the right.
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    is it just me or have the argentinians only ramped up their claim since they heard the word oil...?
    plus, correct me if im wrong, but werent the british there before Argentina was even formed and if anyone should be disputing claim to the islands it should be the spanish? unfortunatly for the argies land is generally speaking not claimed on geographical location?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cl_steele)
    is it just me or have the argentinians only ramped up their claim since they heard the word oil...?
    plus, correct me if im wrong, but werent the british there before Argentina was even formed and if anyone should be disputing claim to the islands it should be the spanish? unfortunatly for the argies land is generally speaking not claimed on geographical location?
    The Argentinians have been trying to get hold of the Islands for 100 years or so. They have actually been trying pretty hard for a while now. It is a big thing for them. The only reason why it has become bigger over here is because it is on the news more now due to recent events


    Yes, the British were there before Argentina was formed. However, they believe they inherited their claim from the Spanish.

    Land can be claimed on geographical location. However, it is not the only factor. Self determination is probably more important.
    • Thread Starter
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Magnentius)
    I must have misunderstood you when you said:

    'Many american territories in the pacific are miles away from the US homeland and no one complains about them?'
    Yes but that was not the main thrust of the argument was it now? the main thrust was that sovereignty is not usually determined by geographical location or proximity with established nations and that just because you feel you have a valid claim doesn't mean you have one.

    Even on the point you picked out, some american territories are complained about, that doesnt prove an argument of principle based on proximity. What about hawaii? what about alaska? surely the latter is closer to canada or russia than the US?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rgman27)
    The Argentinians have been trying to get hold of the Islands for 100 years or so. They have actually been trying pretty hard for a while now. It is a big thing for them. The only reason why it has become bigger over here is because it is on the news more now due to recent events


    Yes, the British were there before Argentina was formed. However, they believe they inherited their claim from the Spanish.

    Land can be claimed on geographical location. However, it is not the only factor. Self determination is probably more important.
    Self Determination is the most important by far, it's been an aspect of International Law since Woodrow Wilsons '14 Points' were accepted as the basis of the League of Nations and it is codified in the founding documents of the UN. Basically so long as there remains a historical British population living on the islands and against Argentinian rule, the Argentinians have no right over the land. However we all know international politics doesn't work like this, plenty of nations are happy to ignore this in the name of regional solidarity or just to score some points with the Argentinians and kick some sand in the face of a permenant security council member.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Argentina does have a valid claim here it goes:
    1) The Nootka Convention gave Spain sovereignty over the Islands (with UK agreement), thus they were passed on to Argentina (the whole of the Vice-Royalty of the Plate River (apart from parts the became other countries) were recognised by Spain as Argentina after the Argentine War of Independence).
    2) British settlement was abandoned in the early 1800s (interpreted a a dropping of the British claim by Argentina) and Luis Vernet headed a group of Argentines to settle on the Islands.
    3) In 1833 the British forced the Argentine settlement out.
    4) Due to the above the principle of self determination does not apply.
    5) Argentina has never dropped its claim to the Islands, the UK has in the early 1800s.
    6) The war cannot be used against Argentina since it was conducted by an non-elected government.
    Thats the claim, personally I think the Islanders have rights but Argentina has a just claim, I learned this from living in Uruguay, were most people support the Argentine claim (and hate Argentina in every other sense).
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rforastiero)
    Argentina does have a valid claim here it goes:
    1) The Nootka Convention gave Spain sovereignty over the Islands (with UK agreement), thus they were passed on to Argentina (the whole of the Vice-Royalty of the Plate River (apart from parts the became other countries) were recognised by Spain as Argentina after the Argentine War of Independence).
    2) British settlement was abandoned in the early 1800s (interpreted a a dropping of the British claim by Argentina) and Luis Vernet headed a group of Argentines to settle on the Islands.
    3) In 1833 the British forced the Argentine settlement out.
    4) Due to the above the principle of self determination does not apply.
    5) Argentina has never dropped its claim to the Islands, the UK has in the early 1800s.
    6) The war cannot be used against Argentina since it was conducted by an non-elected government.
    Thats the claim, personally I think the Islanders have rights but Argentina has a just claim, I learned this from living in Uruguay, were most people support the Argentine claim (and hate Argentina in every other sense).
    People in Britain already know this, however, self determination is still an important principle in international law. A treaty signed 200 years ago is not. That is why the UN won't take it into consideration. Neither will any International Court.

    Quite frankly, it is sad that Argentina has to resort to such desperate measures to justify it's aggression against Britain. It already a greater share of the resources around the Island than it should do. So it should stop complaining and instead try to benefit from having a British Colony on it's borders.

    Ask your friends whether they accept the annexation of Uruguay to Brazil because some people signed away all your rights 200 years ago to Portugal. It is a fairly absurd justification.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rforastiero)
    Argentina does have a valid claim here it goes:
    1) The Nootka Convention gave Spain sovereignty over the Islands (with UK agreement), thus they were passed on to Argentina (the whole of the Vice-Royalty of the Plate River (apart from parts the became other countries) were recognised by Spain as Argentina after the Argentine War of Independence).
    The Nootka Convention does no such thing. All the convention did was stop any new colonies being built on the islands. Both Spain and the United Kingdom retained their claim over the islands.

    (Original post by rforastiero)
    2) British settlement was abandoned in the early 1800s (interpreted a a dropping of the British claim by Argentina) and Luis Vernet headed a group of Argentines to settle on the Islands.
    How Argentina interpreted Britain's withdrawal is irrelevant. Britain left behind a plaque claiming sovereignty over the islands.

    (Original post by rforastiero)
    3) In 1833 the British forced the Argentine settlement out.
    Luis Vernet established an independent whaling colony with consent from the British Consulate in Argentina. This makes him a British agent. It says it all that when Argentina sent troops to annex the colony, Vernet contacted Britain. It was never an Argentine settlement.

    (Original post by rforastiero)
    4) Due to the above the principle of self determination does not apply.
    Ignoring the fact that what you said above was wrong, the United Nation Charter makes no mention of when self determination comes into affect. Argentina has no power to decide who it does and does not extend to.

    (Original post by rforastiero)
    5) Argentina has never dropped its claim to the Islands, the UK has in the early 1800s.
    As I mentioned, the UK never dropped it's claim and for the matter, the UK has claimed the islands since 1690, long before Argentina existed.

    (Original post by rforastiero)
    6) The war cannot be used against Argentina since it was conducted by an non-elected government.
    It can be used to demonstrate the hypocrisy of Argentina's position. Argentina whines and bitches anytime Britain sends a warship down to the Falklands, but they are only there in the first place because of Argentina's invasion.

    (Original post by rforastiero)
    Thats the claim, personally I think the Islanders have rights but Argentina has a just claim, I learned this from living in Uruguay, were most people support the Argentine claim (and hate Argentina in every other sense).
    Argentina has a claim, Britain's is simply a better one. Also, with all due respect, no one in the UK cares what side Uruguay takes.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: February 3, 2012
New on TSR

Find out what year 11 is like

Going into year 11? Students who did it last year share what to expect.

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.