Kirchner's kicking off over the Falkland Islands again....

Excuse my ignorance but I really don't see what the big fuss is about.

Obviously historically the islands do not 'belong' to us - they were at some point conquered.

However nowadays it is mainly British people living there. Why do Argentina want them back so much? And why are we so fond of them that we would actually spend money on going to war over them? Is there oil there or anything?

Reply 41

Hooj

She's fit and all but she seriously needs to focus on what's important.

Reply 42

FrogInABog

11

Original post by abc:)

Excuse my ignorance but I really don't see what the big fuss is about.

Obviously historically the islands do not 'belong' to us - they were at some point conquered.

However nowadays it is mainly British people living there. Why do Argentina want them back so much? And why are we so fond of them that we would actually spend money on going to war over them? Is there oil there or anything?

To say that "the islands do not belong to us" simply because they have been conquered at some point doesn't really make sense; most countries and islands (in fact, probably all) have changed hands many times throughout the ages, but that doesn't invalidate modern borders.

Argentina want them because it is the principle that counts, not what they stand to gain. There may be some mineral wealth in and around the islands, which is currently being explored, but they're much more interested in the idea of flexing their muscles internationally. The Argentine leadership know that gaining the islands would be an enormous propaganda boost, which is largely what caused the 1982 War.

In many ways, we are concerned with keeping them for fairly similar reasons: the principle of defending the rights of the islanders, and not kowtowing to another country (albeit a fairly weedy one), are important to both the leadership of this country and the British people in general. Money would be spent on any future war - although the chances of one are very slim - because the British people would demand it. If we ceded the islands to avoid a war, 1982 would seem like a waste of lives, and given that it is in living memory for about half the population, combined with the media exposure it gets through people like Simon Weston, there's no way the public would want a peaceful surrender without the mandate of the islanders themselves (and even then it would probably be controversial).

Reply 43

AgentSushi

12

Hasn't oil recently been discovered near the Falkland islands?

Reply 44

thunder_chunky

19

Original post by callum9999

That was the point. If you wouldn't suggest that, then you clearly don't think Britain has a divine right to rule the Islands.

I didn't say it does make the British claim any weaker - simply that the British claim isn't as strong as many people insist it is. Strong enough to keep the status-quo I fully agree, but I see no reason why the Argentinian claim to the islands are invalid.

It's not really the point, I would support them if they wanted it but they don't.
I don't get the logic of your point, you are throwing all sorts of strange side points around of things I haven't even mentioned. I do believe Britain has a right to claim complete ownership. History is behind us as are the population, not to mention a large proportion of the international community that actually care.
I never said you believed it to make the British claim weaker, read it again. As for the British claim to the islands, they are stronger than any counter claim. The British have owned the islands for two centuries or more and historically the Argies haven't ever had any proper ownership of the islands. Furthermore they only really want it these days for two reasons. The first is principle, the second is probably to do with the oil field that is not far off the coast of the Falklands.
The Argies think it's unfair to have a referendum when the residents are of British descendents who settled there. But if not them then who else should be asked. The sheep? Really the argument they are putting forward is ridiculous.

Reply 45

Futility

Original post by FrogInABog

Argentina want them because it is the principle that counts, not what they stand to gain. There may be some mineral wealth in and around the islands, which is currently being explored, but they're much more interested in the idea of flexing their muscles internationally. The Argentine leadership know that gaining the islands would be an enormous propaganda boost, which is largely what caused the 1982 War.

I think this probably has something to do with it as well.

Reply 46

AgentSushi

12

Original post by Futility

I think this probably has something to do with it as well.

Ahhh I thought I was right

Reply 47

Kiss

2

I wish that whiney bitch would shut it and focus on her own problems at home. This is just a scape goat to avoid their cripplingly poor economical issues and poor standards of living.

Reply 48

2ndClass

3

Original post by thunder_chunky

The British have owned the islands for two centuries

Doesn't mean it's their's though. Britain "owned" several countries two centuries ago but it gave it back.

or more and historically the Argies haven't ever had any proper ownership of the islands.

How so?

Furthermore they only really want it these days for two reasons. The first is principle, the second is probably to do with the oil field that is not far off the coast of the Falklands.

I suspect that's the same as the British tbh.

The Argies think it's unfair to have a referendum when the residents are of British descendents who settled there. But if not them then who else should be asked. The sheep? Really the argument they are putting forward is ridiculous.

Well that's the whole point, it's a bogus proposal and a waste of money which won't settle the claim.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 49

Miracle Day

21

Las malvinas son argentina!!!

Reply 50

Psyk

16

Original post by 2ndClass

Doesn't mean it's their's though. Britain "owned" several countries two centuries ago but it gave it back.

But in nearly all of those cases, that's because that's what the inhabitants wanted. The only exception I can think of is Hong Kong, and that's because we had an agreement with China that British rule was only temporary (at least for certain parts of it).

This case is different because the people that live there are happy with the status quo.

Reply 51

FrogInABog

11

Original post by Futility

I think this probably has something to do with it as well.

I did mention it, but I'm not convinced that oil wealth is the main reason for their claim. As I said, it makes ownership more attractive, but I think there is much more than mineral wealth to be gained from Kirchner's perspective (and indeed any Argentine leader).

Besides, the veracity of the claims of vast oil reserves around the Falklands is difficult to gauge; several companies have tried (and failed) to find large amounts, and several "big discoveries" have turned out to be less promising than they initially appeared. I believe Rockhopper themselves ran into this problem a few years ago, so it's hard to tell how this drill will turn out.

Anyway, it's not a factor to be discounted, but I would still say that the principle of ownership and the propaganda benefit is what the Argentines are really after.

Original post by Miracle Day

Las malvinas son argentina!!!

Sarcasm, or honest opinion?

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 52

Fenrirs_space

9

Original post by 2ndClass

Doesn't mean it's their's though. Britain "owned" several countries two centuries ago but it gave it back.

But who would we 'give it back' to? The Dutch were the first to find the Island, the British second. The French were the first to settle on there, the British second (without knowing the French colony existed). The Spanish then acquired the French colony. This all happened between 1600 and 1766. The Argentinians don't even come in to the picture until the 1820's

So, considering the French had first claim, the British second and 'then' the French abandoned theirs to the Spanish (putting them third), surely the Islands belong to the British? Until we abandon our claim at least, then Argentina can squabble with their former colonial masters on who takes ownership.

Reply 53

Harry Callahan

14

She can shut up, the slut.

Reply 54

Huskaris

16

If the Falkland Island residents wanted to be part of Argentina, they should be, as it is they do not, and should therefore not be part of Argentina.

Simple, she's a fool.

Could be something to do with oil? ;-)

Reply 55

abc:)

22

Original post by FrogInABog

To say that "the islands do not belong to us" simply because they have been conquered at some point doesn't really make sense; most countries and islands (in fact, probably all) have changed hands many times throughout the ages, but that doesn't invalidate modern borders.

Argentina want them because it is the principle that counts, not what they stand to gain. There may be some mineral wealth in and around the islands, which is currently being explored, but they're much more interested in the idea of flexing their muscles internationally. The Argentine leadership know that gaining the islands would be an enormous propaganda boost, which is largely what caused the 1982 War.

In many ways, we are concerned with keeping them for fairly similar reasons: the principle of defending the rights of the islanders, and not kowtowing to another country (albeit a fairly weedy one), are important to both the leadership of this country and the British people in general. Money would be spent on any future war - although the chances of one are very slim - because the British people would demand it. If we ceded the islands to avoid a war, 1982 would seem like a waste of lives, and given that it is in living memory for about half the population, combined with the media exposure it gets through people like Simon Weston, there's no way the public would want a peaceful surrender without the mandate of the islanders themselves (and even then it would probably be controversial).

So it's simply a matter of pride? And I meant that to apply to all countries really

Reply 56

Architecture-er

19

Original post by GrumpyCat

This is getting boring.

It's not already?

Reply 57

Architecture-er

19

Original post by abc:)

Excuse my ignorance but I really don't see what the big fuss is about.

Obviously historically the islands do not 'belong' to us - they were at some point conquered.

However nowadays it is mainly British people living there. Why do Argentina want them back so much? And why are we so fond of them that we would actually spend money on going to war over them? Is there oil there or anything?

You know, I bet you'd be a bit pissed if someone gave away your house to Argentina, when you've been living there for the last 50/60 years...

That's what it is about, the president of Argy wants them back because she's about to go south from the presidential seat, and is trying to deflect attention away from her embarrassingly stupid regime onto this.
We're so fond of them because we don't like to see people having a tantrum and stealing people's stuff, especially when those people are associated with us.

edit: this might help clarify things for you :wink:

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 58

Tycho

14

Original post by callum9999

And to play devils advocate, the Argentinians clearly don't see the people living in the Falkland Islands as legitimate settlers. While unfair to blame the current inhabitants for what their ancestors did, it's not that difficult to see why the Argentinians see them as occupiers who shouldn't have a say in the matter as opposed to our view of them being legitimate settlers. (Not that I agree with the Argentinian claim to the islands, just that it isn't as clear-cut as the "the islands are clearly ours and no-one can legitimately disagree" mentality people often claim on this topic)

The past is in the past. For sure Britain invaded lots of countries and did some terrible things, but the reality now is that these people call the Falklands their home and they call themselves British. To deprive them of that right over some historic grievance is akin to another invasion of innocent people's rights to self-determination (the very thing the Argentinians are complaing that the British did).

And that's even overlooking the fact that such historic grievances over land are generally arbitrary in nature anyway. From which moment in history do you assume pieces of land were settled upon by their rightful owners? If we go back far enough you could say that nobody owns any piece of land and therefore everything is a free-for-all. Clearly this isn't a practical solution, and in my opinion we should be being practical with such things. The only practical way to settle disputes over such lands is to give the people who live there the choice. That's what's happening in the Falklands with a referendum and I fully support Cameron on that.