Chavez says UK should give Falklands to Argentina

[Proletariat]

"We have to remember the Falklands, how they were taken away from the Argentines," Chavez said in a speech in the western Venezuelan city of Maracaibo. "Those islands are Argentina's. Return them, Mr. Blair, those islands are Argentina's."

Britain still controls the Falklands, which Argentine troops invaded in 1982, setting off a three-month war against colonial ruler Britain in which hundreds were killed on both sides and more than 1,000 wounded.

Blair said during a parliamentary session on Wednesday that countries like Venezuela and Cuba should realise they had much to gain from the principles of democracy.

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-02-09T231230Z_01_N09274037_RTRUKOC_0_UK-VENEZUELA-BRITAIN.xml&archived=False

How dare Blair say such a thing?! Much to gain from democracy???

Edit: Where's JAG?

[Ja'chyra]

He can flap his gums all he likes, they're not getting them.

It would be political suicide for any party to even suggest it.

[Slyspy]

Bless him. The only thing funnier than Chavez's little speeches is the way they wind up certain Organs!

[Idaho]

Well seeing as the only people on the islands speak english and wave union flags, I think they probably should remain english. Other than proximity, what claim does argentina really have?

[Lazul]

Mattias (that's me) says Chavez should go mind his own buisness. :bounce:

[Sjakihata]

And because the speak portugese and spanish in most of south america, those lands should belong to Spain and Portugal? Bad argument.

yes, the falklands should be given to argentina

[solypsist]

Has anyone bothered to ask the Falkland Islanders what they want? kekekeke

[Sjakihata]

no, since it is not about the people, but the land - and the land cant talk. who cares about people anyway?

[Ianofsmeg16]

The people are British, they think of themselves as British, when the Union Jack was rasied in stanley in 1982 the people cheered, they even speak with a slight west-country accent. Are they Argentinian? No.

P.S this is exactly the same thing as Gibralter

[InsaneApache]

no, since it is not about the people, but the land - and the land cant talk. who cares about people anyway?

Hahahaha...very good.

[Slyspy]

And because the speak portugese and spanish in most of south america, those lands should belong to Spain and Portugal? Bad argument.

yes, the falklands should be given to argentina

A valid point if the population of, say, Brazil considered itself to be Portugeuse. But they don't. Unlike in the Flaklands, where the people consider themselves British. Problem solved.

LOL just read your last post. Beware the troll!

[King Henry V]

no, since it is not about the people, but the land - and the land cant talk. who cares about people anyway?
From anyone else, I would think that to be sarcatisc.
BTW, just to let you know before you fly over to the Falklands with a microphone to interview the ground, land does not have any feelings nor can it talk.

[Sjakihata]

The people are British, they think of themselves as British, when the Union Jack was rasied in stanley in 1982 the people cheered, they even speak with a slight west-country accent. Are they Argentinian? No.

P.S this is exactly the same thing as Gibralter

Because of the criminal history of your country; imperialism.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

they (the islanders) are British citizens who appear to want to remain so.

Their right to self-determination trumps Argentina's claims in international law (or so I read) which I guess means that if the U.K. let them go then they'd have more right to be independent (if they didn't want to be part of Argentina) than Argentina would to take control.

Edited to clarify

[Xiahou]

they (the islanders) are British citizens who appear to want to remain so.

Their right to self-determination trumps Argentina's claims in international law (or so I read) which I guess means that if the U.K. let them go then they'd have more right to be independent (if they didn't want to be part of Argentina) than Argentina would to take control.
Well, I dont know.... Chavez said so, afterall. :laugh4:

[Samurai Waki]

I believe Faulklanders would rather be a commonwealth than an Argentinan province. the economic benefits of staying with the UK is far more greater than the economic benefits of joining Argentina. These petty land disputes really don't hold water anymore, unless the people are willing to join a certain side, or they have some sort of vital resource. I think the Faulklands should stay British Territory, or become a Commonwealth, either way, they'd be better off with those choices than joining some South American country.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well, according to Sjak', the crime of imperialism trumps all of this self-determination rot. All the land everywhere should go back to the direct genetic descendents of whatever tribe of hunter-gatherers first pissed on it. Any of us without say an 80-plus% correspondence to that tribe will just have to haul their imperialist butts off to some artificial habitat at one of the LaGrange points. There, problem solved.

This should up the land values at the Oldavai Gorge and the Yangtzhe valley a bit, but the rest might seem strangely....empty.

[King Henry V]

All the land everywhere should go back to the direct genetic descendents of whatever tribe of hunter-gatherers first pissed on it.
What, you mean the penguins?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Gah, self-determination. By which people? Those handful of Brits who get paid by the UK to herd some sheep over there? Gah.

This is about national pride, not self-determination.

Stubborn irredentist pride on behalf of Argentina, that is. It just will not give up it's not-even-remotely-convincing claims on the Falklands. Their claim was unconving in the 19th century, and borders on the bizarre in the 21st century.
Such a vast, empty land. And yet, Videla's junta regime somehow managed to convince it's subjects that the future happiness of Argentina rested on the conquest of a few barren islands, barely suitable even for pinguins. :wall:

[Tribesman]

they (the islanders) are British citizens who appear to want to remain so.

They (the islanders) were stripped of British citizenship by the British government . The British government has already made moves towards joint soveriegnty with Argentina and will continue to do so despite any concerns that the islanders themselves might have .
The falklands are a drain on the British economy , since Fishing and mineral rights have already been signed over to Argentina that only leaves the massively subsidised agricultural sector , which despite the subsidies manages to amass large losses (I wonder why~;) ) .
So no matter how much the locals like to wave the flag , or how British they think they are , there is only one realistically possible outcome .

[Ianofsmeg16]

Look, we didnt give em up in '82 and we sure as hell wont give em up in '06, this is all about pride really, the argies lost but are too stubborn to admit it.

[Tribesman]

Look, we didnt give em up in '82 and we sure as hell wont give em up in '06
Look , you were in the process of giving them up in '82 and you are still in the process of giving them up . All thats changed is that there is pile of corpses.

[Duke Malcolm]

Hmm... The French first took the Eastern Island, then the British the Western Island, then the Spanish got the French bit, then Argentina claimed to the Spanish bit after independence, then the Argentines invaded the British bit, then the British took back the Western Island and took the Eastern Island. I don't see how Argentina has any more claim on them all than we do...


Because of the criminal history of your country; imperialism.

The criminality of imperialism is a matter of opinion. Without imperialism the world would be extraordinarily different and so one is hardly able to say whether it is criminal or not especially since it is incredibly blinkered and close-minded and just plain wrong to say that flat out imperialism is evil and all those in a foreign empire are repressed, punished, and discriminated against.

[Slyspy]

they (the islanders) are British citizens who appear to want to remain so.

They (the islanders) were stripped of British citizenship by the British government . The British government has already made moves towards joint soveriegnty with Argentina and will continue to do so despite any concerns that the islanders themselves might have .
The falklands are a drain on the British economy , since Fishing and mineral rights have already been signed over to Argentina that only leaves the massively subsidised agricultural sector , which despite the subsidies manages to amass large losses (I wonder why~;) ) .
So no matter how much the locals like to wave the flag , or how British they think they are , there is only one realistically possible outcome .

Not entirely true regarding citizenship. Merely a change in regulations. Those who were citizens before are still citizens, as are any children born or adopted by current citizens or settled residents up til 2002. The citizenship of children born or adopted after 2002 may have to be applied for though, I'm not sure. Even the official FAQs are incredibly confusing.

As for the fishing and mineral right. They were put up for open tender, it is true. Hands who here works for a foreign or foreign owned company? Who gets their essential amenities from a foreign owned company? Who owns (or runs) the industry does not detirmine the nationality of a people nor the land.

I hope that talks are just that: diplomatic niceties to the Government of Argentina. Though I do fear for both the Falklands and, closer to home, Gibraltar under the current government.

Edit: after further research.

[lancelot]

Because of the criminal history of your country; imperialism.

What a load of nonsense... British Imperialism did as much benefit as it did harm... Look at all the stable nations Britain has had a hand in creating... Australia, South Arfrica, New Zealand, the mighty USA!!! (although somewhat indirectly) etc etc

What about all the infrastructure building in the former colonies? Can you imagine India having even half the railroads it does if not for British investment?

Now Im not saying Britain doesnt have some less than fine moments but on the whole its a reasonable record of achievement and what nation doesnt?

And in purely pragmatic terms, if it wasnt us, it would have been someone else and its a good bet that would have been a lot worse.

Calling Imperialism (paticularly that of Britains past) criminal is only said with hindsight and is not valid.

Does anyone consider ancient warriors killing prisoners as war criminals today? Of course not...why? Because in that period that behaviour was not a criminal act.

As for the faklands directly. I believe (i'll have to look it up) they were originally claimed by the British and subsequently changed hands a few times. Argentina has no (or at best) dubious claims over the islands.

[Slyspy]

What a load of nonsense... British Imperialism did as much benefit as it did harm... Look at all the stable nations Britain has had a hand in creating... Australia, South Arfrica, New Zealand, the mighty USA!!! (although somewhat indirectly) etc etc

What about all the infrastructure building in the former colonies? Can you imagine India having even half the railroads it does if not for British investment?

Now Im not saying Britain doesnt have some less than fine moments but on the whole its a reasonable record of achievement and what nation doesnt?

And in purely pragmatic terms, if it wasnt us, it would have been someone else and its a good bet that would have been a lot worse.

Calling Imperialism (paticularly that of Britains past) criminal is only said with hindsight and is not valid.

Does anyone consider ancient warriors killing prisoners as war criminals today? Of course not...why? Because in that period that behaviour was not a criminal act.

As for the faklands directly. I believe (i'll have to look it up) they were originally claimed by the British and subsequently changed hands a few times. Argentina has no (or at best) dubious claims over the islands.

Not all of the Empire has been a success after independence and none of those you mention above in your first paragraph have, until recently, been run by the ethnic natives themselves. It is a difficult argument to make, that these places are better off having been Empire. Even the men who built the Raj had their share of doubts on that particular subject (by the way I do not believe that the railways were built in India were financed by the British for the Indians. They were financed by the Indians for the British).

[Duke Malcolm]

Not all of the Empire has been a success after independence and none of those you mention above in your first paragraph have, until recently, been run by the ethnic natives themselves. It is a difficult argument to make, that these places are better off having been Empire. Even the men who built the Raj had their share of doubts on that particular subject (by the way I do not believe that the railways were built in India were financed by the British for the Indians. They were financed by the Indians for the British).

The Railways were funded by the British, most likely private investors. British investment in the Empire and all over the world was a lot higher that Western investment in foreign countries now...

[Marcellus]

Chavez responded by telling Blair to stay in his place and calling him the main ally of "Hitler Danger Bush Hitler" -- referring to his favorite nickname for Bush, Mr. Danger.

:laugh4:

[Tribesman]

Not entirely true regarding citizenship.
My mistake Slyspy , they took away citizenship in '81 and gave it back in '83 .

[Brenus]

In the Post Colonial Success, do you include Zimbabwe, Kenya, Uganda, Sri Lanka, Burma and Sudan? I can carry on…
Do not believe Niall Ferguson…:laugh4:

[caravel]

Maybe the falklands should just be independent? :book: :idea2:

[Marcellus]

Maybe the falklands should just be independent? :book: :idea2:

Considering that the population of the Falkland Islands is a little under 3000, would they be able to maintain the Islands' infrastructure without British money and support? They might be able to, but I suspect not. And would they actually want to?

[King Henry V]

Maybe the falklands should just be independent? :book: :idea2:
So what would stop Argentina from "annexing" it again?

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Some kind of really big fence?

[lars573]

The Falklands will end up like Belize. Independant but under British protection.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Chaves should let his brain become one with the .44 magnum round, imho.

[lancelot]

In the Post Colonial Success, do you include Zimbabwe, Kenya, Uganda, Sri Lanka, Burma and Sudan? I can carry on…
Do not believe Niall Ferguson…:laugh4:

As i already said, no empire is spotless, far from it but I dont buy the argument that the poor condition of these countries is because of imperialism..

Most of the ex-empire lands in africa wailed for 'independence' and then found they didnt know how to manage it once they had it..

[Watchman]

Yeah, well, most of the necessary long-term damage was already done by that time so I don't really see your point. The Cold War and the economic paradigm shift of the Seventies did the rest.

[Byzantine Prince]

Who cares what Chavez sez?

Seriously since when are all the words coming out of politician's mouths supposed to be taken seriously. It isn't like him saying this is going to make any difference. It is just there to piss off americans and english. Let him be an idiot. Very little depends on him.

[Soulforged]

Well seeing as the only people on the islands speak english and wave union flags, I think they probably should remain english. Other than proximity, what claim does argentina really have?
I don't want to port the nationalistic flag here, but our right to claim them is greater than any that Britain had at any time. This already has been discussed and I presented the evidence and claims of both parties, recently it seems that it's more reasonable to just let the british have it, but that's not right if we guide ourselves for the same principles of law and a general international respect (besides other cases in wich Britain herself did something similar).

On the subject: if this is suposed to be an attack on Chavez- Then notice that he always speaks like this. To him there's two absolutes that rule the universe. Latin American spirit and everyone else. Pure rethoric is not to be taken seriously. Besides that the claim of Malvinas is far from Chavez mouth, it's folklore within Argentina and almost every latin american country, except for Chile perhaps.

If this is supposed to be an attack on Blair, then I've not much to say about it. Though if I should refer to the initial question, we should first define what we call democracy, literally speaking there's no democracies, if we appeal to emotional sense of the word, then there's nothing much to criticize because there cannot be a debate on such things.

[Slyspy]

The Railways were funded by the British, most likely private investors. British investment in the Empire and all over the world was a lot higher that Western investment in foreign countries now...

And why was that capital invested? To make money, as with all capital. Money which stayed in India? Most of the time, no. Don't get me wrong, it was a great achievement and legacy but to hold the railways up as an example of British benevolence is not quite right. It was all about the money, and about control. The Government of India was one of those rare paternal autocracies which worked, but its primary role was to make cash for Britain, not for India.

Edit: On topic, a discussion on the Falklands was one of the first threads which Soulforged post in IIRC. There was not terribly much support for the Argentine claim! I doubt that much has changed.

[Red Peasant]

Argentina = a country of colonials that was forged in the heat of imperialism.

The Argentinians have a beautiful country with many resources and plenty of land for everyone. Yet, with all of its advantages, they have managed to screw it up again, and again, and again. Even if they did have some 'right' (Lol at this concept) to the islands, they wouldn't deserve them. The 'Malvinas' are a boon to Argie politicians, a nice little diversion for when the domestic situation is a mess, like it usually is. Don't they also claim the whole of the Antarctic because it happens to be just south of them. Who are the imperialists here? The Argentinians are far from spotless in this respect.

[Samurai Waki]

Personally, I think Argentina would be better off just leaving it as a British headache. It's a rocky tundra island, that doesn't produce much economically (Fishing probably being it's only export), nobody wants to go there...for sed reason, and most of the population like being under British Rule than they would Argentinan rule. The Only thing that the Falklands would be good for is a staging ground for allied forces in the event of some sort of war or crisis in South America... in which case it probably would get over taken anyway.

[Meneldil]

If you think British Imperialism, and Colonialism/Imperialism (note : they are 2 different notions, although linked when it comes to France and UK foreign policy in the 18th - 19th) as a whole wasn't criminal, I suggest you read this article (http://books.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1674478,00.html#top).

The good old 'We helped these countries' is a bit outdated now.

Back on topic, I can't help but support Chavez for the way he keeps pissing the rest of the world off.

[Duke Malcolm]

And why was that capital invested? To make money, as with all capital. Money which stayed in India? Most of the time, no. Don't get me wrong, it was a great achievement and legacy but to hold the railways up as an example of British benevolence is not quite right. It was all about the money, and about control. The Government of India was one of those rare paternal autocracies which worked, but its primary role was to make cash for Britain, not for India.

Edit: On topic, a discussion on the Falklands was one of the first threads which Soulforged post in IIRC. There was not terribly much support for the Argentine claim! I doubt that much has changed.

Perhaps you should read Niall Ferguson's book more thoroughly... obviously you did not notice he spoke of how the empire was not exactly profitable... Money invested in India and the colonies improved things there. Think of various famines avoided due to the swift transportation of food (there were a few famines, however, where the inept Viceroy decided the free market would provide food to prevent it, but it didn't). Think of the employment created (the Indian National Railways is the largest employer in the world), think of the ability to move products throughout the country faster, hence improving trade and such, and much else besides.

Also, you seem to have missed the bit about Africa, where he certainly does not say British Africa was happy and cheery and all well and good...

[rory_20_uk]

Around the falklands there have been recent thoughts about oil. Possibly they are in fact extremely rich and just need some capital to get the oil. Or maybe there's nothing.

Yes, Britain like every other country invests to get a return, and its track record in India was not spotless... But can you say the country was better governed by the Indian Raj? Seems to me to be a case of romanticising about the locals, and how they'd have done oh so much better left own their own devices.

When countries that were part of the British Empire are assessed, it seems that most that were granted independence have done relatively well, and those that fought tooth and nail for it are in many cases still fighting.

But as has been said, it's still all the Colonial power's fault... :inquisitive:

~:smoking:

[Duke Malcolm]

If you think British Imperialism, and Colonialism/Imperialism (note : they are 2 different notions, although linked when it comes to France and UK foreign policy in the 18th - 19th) as a whole wasn't criminal, I suggest you read this article (http://books.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1674478,00.html#top).

The good old 'We helped these countries' is a bit outdated now.

Back on topic, I can't help but support Chavez for the way he keeps pissing the rest of the world off.

I'm sorry, but to compare the Indian famines to the Holocaust is wrong... Hitler intentionally set about massacring Jews, the Viceroy was inept and thought there would be enough food. Such famines had been prevent before byt the Government of India... The Guardian is hardly an unbiased newspaper for such things...

[Soulforged]

Argentina = a country of colonials that was forged in the heat of imperialism.Argentina was far from being a colony at the time of the Revolution. Buenos Aires was the epicenter of all Spanish dealings, in all directions, regarding South America.


The Argentinians have a beautiful country with many resources and plenty of land for everyone. Yet, with all of its advantages, they have managed to screw it up again, and again, and again. Even if they did have some 'right' (Lol at this concept) to the islands, they wouldn't deserve them. That's to simplistic to be truth. First of all, the tesis that we screwed up, is false a priori. It was a convergence of many factors, including the imperialist actitude of Great Britain. In one of the invansions, and this might be an important point, the british almost emptied the reserves of the national treasure and took all of that capital to their country. Also when the first notoriously corrupt dealing was made by argentinians in the international setting, it was made with british investors and commerciants, and it generated one of the most infamous public debts of all times. Now saying that "we" as refering to the people is also false from any point of view, for almost 100 years of history (not continious) the people had from little to zero power, even the vote was all arranged. So the we has no influence. The part of diserve, it dependes in what sense you're using it, if you're using it in the technical legal sense we deserve it more than the british diserve it.

The 'Malvinas' are a boon to Argie politicians, a nice little diversion for when the domestic situation is a mess, like it usually is. Don't they also claim the whole of the Antarctic because it happens to be just south of them. Who are the imperialists here? The Argentinians are far from spotless in this respect.Yes very beatiful emonotial statement, but far from the truth. Malvinas are not used since 1982 as a topic of political discussion, not even campaining. The subject of the Antartic has been exagerated. The first spots of the Antartic continent were discovered by a mission of swedens, in wich a guide was hired from the lines of the argentinian marine corp. Thus the claim to a larger part of the Antartic than we've. Strictly speaking there's only two countries with serious claims over the forzen lands, the swedens and the argentinians, but saying that we want all of the territory is rubbish. About imperialism, you could hardly call Argentina imperialist from any point of view, if you're being serious. Argentina fought various wars: one was for independence, other was to help allies, other was a large civil war if you want though it wasn't presented in form of war, the last was Malvinas wich can hardly be imperialistic, since, wheter it was gobernment propanga or not, our claim at that point was realistically and legally better than any country. If it's economic, well I shouldn't talk about it. In sintesys there's no substance in your claims, wheter you see Argentina as imperialistic in the sense of conquest or in the sense of economical expanssion, in both fields Argentina has never claimed such thing, and nothing like it, and more importantly never took any action that might indicate such actitud as other countries actually did.

Personally, I think Argentina would be better off just leaving it as a British headache. It's a rocky tundra island, that doesn't produce much economically (Fishing probably being it's only export), nobody wants to go there...for sed reason, and most of the population like being under British Rule than they would Argentinan rule. The Only thing that the Falklands would be good for is a staging ground for allied forces in the event of some sort of war or crisis in South America... in which case it probably would get over taken anyway.I wish it will be that simple. From a political point of view, recovering them will be reafirming the national soveingty over sovereing territory. From the economical point of view, the islands posses a geographic substract of proto petro-oil, wich might be a fine resource in years to come.

[Tribesman]

Yes very beatiful emonotial statement, but far from the truth. Malvinas are not used since 1982 as a topic of political discussion, not even campaining.
How come they went back to the UN in '86 and got yet another resolution about the issue of soveriegnty , and then in '94 amended the Argentine constitution to restate their claim ?

[InsaneApache]

Why stop there? Why not give the Channel Islands to the French? after all they are a lot closer to France than the UK. Whilst were about it the French can hand back Calais. After all it is (probably) closer to the shores of Kent than Paris. Now where did we put those 13 colonies? :laugh4:

[Idaho]

In one of the invansions, and this might be an important point, the british almost emptied the reserves of the national treasure and took all of that capital to their country.
Never one to defend the British colonial past. However this often waved bit of nonsense is provided by every ex colony. "Oh the British took a few gold bars back in 1862 and we've been broke ever since".

It doesn't wash. It's pure claptrap. A nation's wealth is in it's land, people and ingenuity.

[Incongruous]

Bloody Normans coming over here, taking all our money and food.
We want the Normans to give us back our money. Because what did they ever do for us?
Same for those bloody Romans.

[Viking]

Maybe the falklands should just be independent? :book: :idea2:

The people of the FI wants to stay British, and so it shall be. It`s called democracy.

[Red Peasant]

Well, Soulforged you seem like a nice enough chap, but I've only one word for your nationalist sentimentalism. Humbug.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Why stop there? Why not give the Channel Islands to the French? Exactly. As soon as Blair gives up the Falklands and Gibraltar, I'm going to get myself a few lads together to invade Guernsey. Forge us a little kingdom for ourselves.
Wouldn't want to miss out on the action.

[lancelot]

Yeah, well, most of the necessary long-term damage was already done by that time so I don't really see your point. The Cold War and the economic paradigm shift of the Seventies did the rest.

That kinds absolves every-ex colony of the responsibility of managing their own affairs wisely...

History has repeatedly shown that virtually any nation can 'pull itself together' (for want of a better espression) if the collective will is there... I mean post ww1 Germany was in a situation where bones were worth more than money! for pete's sake! and they managed to get there asses in gear, Japan transformed iteslf from a agrarian economy to a stable & powerful industrialised nation in some 50 odd years etc etc

No one forced Idi Amin to blow a years taxes on a private jet but he did...I suppose that is the long shadow of Imperialism too... How long before problems are stopped being blamed on others?



And why was that capital invested? To make money, as with all capital. Money which stayed in India? Most of the time, no. Don't get me wrong, it was a great achievement and legacy but to hold the railways up as an example of British benevolence is not quite right. It was all about the money, and about control. The Government of India was one of those rare paternal autocracies which worked, but its primary role was to make cash for Britain, not for India.

Of course investment is made for some hope of a return but that still does not change the fact that the tracks were there and a benefit to the local populace, before and after independence. I mean, if we tore them up and took them with us, I could see your point :laugh4:

But there are even British examples were investment was planned for which would not have yeilded any return. As late as 1865, the British were considering building an expensive amount of forts in canada to protect them against possible US invasion...the cost of these forts would have far, far exceeded the turn-over of canada many times over...so its not all about the money, in some cases, concern for the local populace was there too.

[Slyspy]

Perhaps you should read Niall Ferguson's book more thoroughly... obviously you did not notice he spoke of how the empire was not exactly profitable... Money invested in India and the colonies improved things there. Think of various famines avoided due to the swift transportation of food (there were a few famines, however, where the inept Viceroy decided the free market would provide food to prevent it, but it didn't). Think of the employment created (the Indian National Railways is the largest employer in the world), think of the ability to move products throughout the country faster, hence improving trade and such, and much else besides.

Also, you seem to have missed the bit about Africa, where he certainly does not say British Africa was happy and cheery and all well and good...

I'm sorry but you seem to have mistakenly assumed that I have read that book. Also there seems to be some confusion over who profited from works such as the railways. I should not have used the phrase "make cash for Britain". I should have said "make cash for the foreigner". As a national concern India was not a money maker. As ever however there was money to be made through investment, the majority of which came from Europe. Hence when money was made it flowed back to Europe. Though the railways may have provided employment then as now, faciltated increased local trade and may have been used famine relief operations these were side-issues, not the purpose of building them. This is the point that I was trying to make. It is also sad to note that even when the trains were used to transport famine relief much could be left to rot at the stations because there was insuffient infrastructure to deliever it. A lesson that had still not been learnt in time for recent tradegies such as the tsunami.

[Slyspy]

That kinds absolves every-ex colony of the responsibility of managing their own affairs wisely...

History has repeatedly shown that virtually any nation can 'pull itself together' (for want of a better espression) if the collective will is there... I mean post ww1 Germany was in a situation where bones were worth more than money! for pete's sake! and they managed to get there asses in gear, Japan transformed iteslf from a agrarian economy to a stable & powerful industrialised nation in some 50 odd years etc etc

No one forced Idi Amin to blow a years taxes on a private jet but he did...I suppose that is the long shadow of Imperialism too... How long before problems are stopped being blamed on others?




Of course investment is made for some hope of a return but that still does not change the fact that the tracks were there and a benefit to the local populace, before and after independence. I mean, if we tore them up and took them with us, I could see your point :laugh4:

But there are even British examples were investment was planned for which would not have yeilded any return. As late as 1865, the British were considering building an expensive amount of forts in canada to protect them against possible US invasion...the cost of these forts would have far, far exceeded the turn-over of canada many times over...so its not all about the money, in some cases, concern for the local populace was there too.

Considering is not the same as actually doing it. One might consider a plan and then abandon it as too expensive. Neither, I suspect, would such forts be built merely to protect the local population.

As I previously said the railways of India were our legacy there, but to assume that the represent some knid of Imperial altruism is wrong.

In some respects the mess that is Africa is a result of Imperialism. We lump ethnic groups together in made up country then sod off and leave them, in some cases with little experience of proper governance and with no strong central authority which all concerned can follow. Hell, peaceful coexistence between the Scots and the English took long enough so why expect anything more from post-colonial Africa? Unlike in India the governments we left behind have been weak and the countries have descended into corruption, violence and poverty. But then unlike India there had been no previous experience of nationhood or of large scale central government. Not all (or even mostly) the white man's fault of course - just look at Zimbabwe - but we have a hand in it like it or not.

[Soulforged]

Yes very beatiful emonotial statement, but far from the truth. Malvinas are not used since 1982 as a topic of political discussion, not even campaining.
How come they went back to the UN in '86 and got yet another resolution about the issue of soveriegnty , and then in '94 amended the Argentine constitution to restate their claim ?You got me with the second one (forgot that) [Under the title of "Temporary Provisions" -First.- 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.], but the first has no relevance at all since the claim was still active since the past century. However if you lived here you'll notice, depending in how you define politics, that the Malvinas subject is far from being political right now.

Never one to defend the British colonial past. However this often waved bit of nonsense is provided by every ex colony. "Oh the British took a few gold bars back in 1862 and we've been broke ever since".First it wasn't a "few gold bars" second I never stated it was causalistic. Third if you live in London go to the Central Bank (that's how you call it right?) and ask for "treasure brought back from Argentina".

It doesn't wash. It's pure claptrap. A nation's wealth is in it's land, people and ingenuity.And that's idealistic crap. You see we could use a few bucks here, certainly is not the only source of wealth, but reducing all sources of wealth to those three is false, and you know it.

Well, Soulforged you seem like a nice enough chap, but I've only one word for your nationalist sentimentalism. Humbug.All OKA :2thumbsup: ...except that the nationalistic sentimentalism is not mine, and all nationalistic sentimentalism is "humbug" in one sense of the world or the other.

[rory_20_uk]

Whining over the moss of gold many years ago might have relevance if the country had nothing else.

Relatively recently Argentina was broke. Massive debts in the billions (and British ships aren't that big!). But this in a matter of a few years was sorted out by turning the economy around.

Yes, in the 19th century "to the victors go the spoils". Britain was more powerful, so got the loot. Now wealth is not measured in the same way, and it really is time to move on as the loot stealing on today's economy is not going to matter.

For example, look at Japan in WW2. Stole massive amounts of money off SouthEast Asia, and many have said their postwar recovery was partly due to laundering the money they'd stolen. Southeast Asia has recovered since then, and that was far more recent.

~:smoking:

[Soulforged]

Whining over the moss of gold many years ago might have relevance if the country had nothing else. No. It has historic relevance.

Relatively recently Argentina was broke. Massive debts in the billions (and British ships aren't that big!). But this in a matter of a few years was sorted out by turning the economy around.It wasn't sortted out yet, and I distrust any official notice that says otherwise, you see...it's a secret (so keep it to yourself)...is all propaganda.

Yes, in the 19th century "to the victors go the spoils". Britain was more powerful, so got the loot. Now wealth is not measured in the same way, and it really is time to move on as the loot stealing on today's economy is not going to matter.Wrong. If you read the history of British Invasions to River Plate, you'll see that they lost, but in the way home, retreating, they took a few spoils for free.

For example, look at Japan in WW2. Stole massive amounts of money off SouthEast Asia, and many have said their postwar recovery was partly due to laundering the money they'd stolen. Southeast Asia has recovered since then, and that was far more recent.Imperial Japan won actual battles didn't it.

[rory_20_uk]

Yes, historic relevance but no other.

And ao Argentina's still broke - and you'll not believe anything that says otherwise. Here's some bias propagana for you: http://www.economist.com/countries/Argentina/profile.cfm?folder=Profile-Forecast

By the sound of things, re the River Plate the British lost the battle yet still came home with the loot. A great defence there...

Imperial Japan did win battles. Perhaps the countries they fought against decided that having their capital sacked was not a good idea, so had to win the war before taking all the gold. You appear to have missed the entire point by the way.

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The Falklands have British people on them, end of.

As to Imperialism, yes some of it, especially Africa, was quite bad but a lot of it wasn't. On balance they were probably better off under British rule than under anyone else and lets be honest, the British working man at the time wasn't that much better off than those in the colonies.

Hell, I'm not surprised the British looked down at some of the people the conquered. First you conquer them, then you discover they burn wives with their dead husbands and ritually murder people while travelling with them on the road (Thugee).

The British of the time definately though they were doing them a favour.

[lancelot]

Considering is not the same as actually doing it. One might consider a plan and then abandon it as too expensive. Neither, I suspect, would such forts be built merely to protect the local population.

Well, considering the source specifically mentions the protection of the population against american aggression, how can that be? And why plan to build the forts then- practice? Its a known fact that canada wasnt 'worth' as much as the carribean anyway, so I think perhaps you judge a bit too harshly.



In some respects the mess that is Africa is a result of Imperialism. We lump ethnic groups together in made up country then sod off and leave them.

geez, so one minute we are harsh colonial exploiters who should have never been there in the first place and next, we 'sod off and leave them' (implying we did leave before we should have) Seems like you want it both ways... these 'naitons' screamed for independence and they got it, and as someone said, asia has recovered in just as much a short amount of time...

I know there is a desire to blame everyone else for problems but I try to look at it at another angle.... perhaps, just perhaps....these nations were not ready for independence, perhaps, just perhaps, these nations were not ready to govern themselves...

The simplest explanation is often the right one.

[rory_20_uk]

If the countries we had so unfairly created and the locals such lovely undertrodden people, why didn't the countries become based on ethnic lines? Oh, of course! Some have tried to do that: let's look at Uganda and Ruwanda. Noe even the Belgians in the Congo managed to kill that many.

~:smoking:

[Watchman]

Drawing borders along ethnicity lines sucks. It was tried after WW1 on a large scale, for about the first and last time in history. The experience was... negative.

That aside, the former colonies on the average became such (instead of just colonies) at rather differing timetables and under differing circumstances, and their state borders naturally reflect that too. Nevermind now that after their infrastructures and adminstrative systems had for decades been built from scratch around the local colonial lingua franca and networks, trying to weld them together with parts of the neighboring one built around a different adminstrative language and network would hardly have appeared terribly clever.

Besides, quite a few of those ex-colonies actually managed reasonably well after gaining independence. Most of the troubles started later on.

As for the Imperialism itself, its fundamental goal was always profit in one form or another. The colonial empires did not build up their subject regions' infrastructure and adminstration out of generosity or any genuine belief in The White Man's Burden; they built them as investements into their own economic and strategic interests. Wolf's Europe and the People Without History, although a bit dated, is a good thorough study on the exploitative nature of Imperialism and spends a good number of pages in an in-depth analysis on just how disadvantaged and exploited for example Indians were in the internal economy of the colonial empires (the system was actually downright devious to the point of impressive). 'Course, Wolf also gets counted amongst "dependency theorists" for good reasons, but that doesn't make his assessements any less valid.

[Slyspy]

I have always thought that the Empire was gained more or less by accident in the pursuit of money. There is nothing wrong with that but was no other agenda or long term plan that led to, say, the aquisition of so much of India. I seem to have given the idea that I believe the Empire to be a negative feature of history, and that it oppressed those it ruled. Nothing could be futher from the truth. I believe the Empire to be a neutral entity, primarily because if its decentralised nature.

For example to blame Britain for the deaths in those famines in India is to forget that there was no central British policy on the matter. It was left up to the largely autonomous Indian Government. The failures of 1876-78 were due to weak local leadership rather than the policy of HM's Government, and were matched by successes in 1867 and 1900.

I do believe that some countries in Africa especially were indeed given their independence too soon. Of course that may be because of political or economic necessity, but with no examples of stable national government before Britain many have failed to hold their nations, which we created, together. India is a different kettle of fish entirely, but even there we hear of rises in honour killings, for example, as the authority's control weakens in the provinces.

Edit: This will be my last word on the subject for fear of derailing the thread further. Back to the Falklands, a genuine colony!

[Soulforged]

Yes, historic relevance but no other.If you take into account that we were discussing the historical decay of a country, then it's all that matters.

And ao Argentina's still broke - and you'll not believe anything that says otherwise. Here's some bias propagana for you.The first part is just a scientific prediction, wich could happen or not, therefore it doesn't talks about actuality. This excerpt however:
Economic policy outlook
The repayment of debt owed to the Fund removes some constraints on policymaking, which could encourage the extension of heterodox measures such as price agreements. This infamous repayment of the debt is a clear political move. When Brasil anounced it, the argentinian government didn't wanted to be second, so they did and they payed. Now as economics go, not all national economists agree with with that statement, but again that's all predictions. For the actual situation here, some factories are reopening, and other bussiness also appear to recover slowly. However there's havoc in the prices and in the rural enviorament. And of course we're almost 10000 million dollars poor since the repayment. Many industries that could be subsidiated are not getting that state investement as well as other public services that need a care or two thousand. Many economist remain on the possition that this is exactly what should have been done, and not a childish political movement. In other news, president Kirchner wants all the three powers to himself, when not right?

Imperial Japan did win battles. Perhaps the countries they fought against decided that having their capital sacked was not a good idea, so had to win the war before taking all the gold. You appear to have missed the entire point by the way.That point was? This thread has been lost since a long time.


The Falklands have British people on them, end of.If it was that simple this discussion would be over since decades. The british people could be ruled by an argentinian government. It could be by a cooperative government between Argentina and Great Britain (though it's not what is wanted by both parties). In fact this projects where presented before the begining of the war, England didn't say a word, ignored it, so Argentina attacked. By the way, you might want to know, that when the British invaded Malvinas there was argentinians living there, no crap, serious.:inquisitive:

[Teleklos Archelaou]

no, since it is not about the people, but the land - and the land cant talk. who cares about people anyway?
"All brits and brit descendants should report to the UK immediately!" "When roll is called and everyone has their seat we will proceed to Germany!"

Eventually, we will be able to pack everyone in the world back into central africa and leave everywhere else alone like the world was intended, eh? :laugh4:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

"All brits and brit descendants should report to the UK immediately!" "When roll is called and everyone has their seat we will proceed to Germany!"

Eventually, we will be able to pack everyone in the world back into central africa and leave everywhere else alone like the world was intended, eh? :laugh4:

Absolutely. This process needs to begin immediately, as it will take a while.

Side note: TA, you and I need to go halvsies on the Oldovai Gorge propertyl rights -- you and I being the only ones to take this thread to its lovely and illogical conclusion.

[Incongruous]

Can someone please tell me what right real or otherwise Argentina has to the Falklands?

[Duke Malcolm]

As the successor to the Spanish presence in South America, it might be said to have a right over West Falkland, which the Spanish bought from the French. The British Government of the time did not recognise Argentinian sovereignty over West Falkland, I believe. East Falkland has always been British, except for a short time when the Argentinians invaded it in the 1830s, I believe, and 1980s, of course.

[Soulforged]

Can someone please tell me what right real or otherwise Argentina has to the Falklands?There's no more blind than he who denies to see. LINK (http://www.malvinasonline.com.ar/derech01.php)(in spanish) Hope that answer your questions, it gives both sides arguements, make your guesses and all that. Don't ask for a traduction because I'll not do it again. Cheers.

[Soulforged]

As the successor to the Spanish presence in South America, it might be said to have a right over West Falkland, which the Spanish bought from the French. The British Government of the time did not recognise Argentinian sovereignty over West Falkland, I believe. East Falkland has always been British, except for a short time when the Argentinians invaded it in the 1830s, I believe, and 1980s, of course.
History revisionism and Wikipedia syndrome in there, all crap from the start to the end.

[Papewaio]

Who do are the people of the Falklands descended from?
Which language do the people of the Falklands speak?
Which country do they wish to choose to belong to?

[rory_20_uk]

Well, that's solved! A Spanish source that few can read and isn't translated... So even if it isn't bias to wards the Spanish point of view, most here can't read it in any case! :dizzy2:

As Papewaio kindly reminds the more dogmatic of members, the people themselves want to be British! How is that not an open and shut case??? Unless South America gives the indiginous people most of the power and make their languages official, going to historical precidents about some matters and not others appears to be Cherry picking. The way things are now the locals on the mainland are extremely marginalised, and the Falklands want to be British. Deceptively simple... :dizzy2:

~:smoking:

[Duke Malcolm]

Who do are the people of the Falklands descended from?
Britons


Which language do the people of the Falklands speak?
English


Which country do they wish to choose to belong to?
Great Britain

[KukriKhan]

From the US perspective, the '82 War there, and our reaction (or rather, non-reaction) to it, put the final nail in the coffin of "The Monroe Doctrine" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_doctrine

I remember being put on alert when shots were first fired there; my commander told us that "it was unclear" whose side we were on. That alert only lasted 2 days, and we stood down, quietly.

[InsaneApache]

From the US perspective, the '82 War there, and our reaction (or rather, non-reaction) to it, put the final nail in the coffin of "The Monroe Doctrine" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_doctrine

I remember being put on alert when shots were first fired there; my commander told us that "it was unclear" whose side we were on. That alert only lasted 2 days, and we stood down, quietly.

Yes it was noticed in the UK at the time. So much for the special relationship then. :shame:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Surely the US would never hesitate to choose which side it's on when one of it's allies is drawn into war? Especially when it involves their closest friend and staunchest ally, the UK? Let alone put up a no-show when the very territorial integrity of Britain is forcefully violated?

I've been told America has a rather different definition of good allianceship. ~:rolleyes:

[Red Peasant]

Yes, there was a worry about the US at the time and they did waver (we remember Suez).
There are no 'special relationships' in international relations and we Brits should disabuse ourselves of that notion, there are only interests, which may or may not coincide.

[InsaneApache]

The problem for the septics was that they were allied to both the UK (NATO etc) and Argentina (OAS) so did quite a lot of fench sitting at the time. It was only just before the shooting war started that they agreed to share surveillance intelligence with Her Majesties Government.

There was a lot of dismay and quite a bit of irritation in the UK at the time over this. Still as we have the Yanks surrounded in Mildenhall and Lakenheath they eventually saw sense. (ie our point of veiw) :laugh4:

[Tribesman]

Yes it was noticed in the UK at the time. So much for the special relationship then.
Come off it Apache , they gave you the new missiles and countermeasures when the task force stopped at Ascension , to counter the older missiles and countermeasures that they had given the Argentines .

Surely the US would never hesitate to choose which side it's on when one of it's allies is drawn into war?
The problem was that bothsides were its allies , the military junta were graduates of that wonderful establishment of military dictatorship education , the School of the Americas .

Let alone put up a no-show when the very territorial integrity of Britain is forcefully violated?

Errrr ...... wasn't Grenada British territory , I wonder who invaded that peice of real estate .:laugh4:

[Marcellus]

Let alone put up a no-show when the very territorial integrity of Britain is forcefully violated?

Errrr ...... wasn't Grenada British territory , I wonder who invaded that peice of real estate .:laugh4:

I'm pretty sure Grenada had been granted independence some time before the US invasion. However, as a commonwealth realm, its invasion without British consultation still caused quite a bit of an upset.

[InsaneApache]

It's not often your right Tribesman, but on this occasion you're wrong again.:laugh4:

Grenada was not governed by the UK at the time of the US invasion. (They even made a 'flick' of it, starring Clint 'make my day' Eastwood)

It didn't half piss off Madge* though. :laugh4:

* Her Britannic Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II.

[Tribesman]

It didn't half piss off Madge* though.

* Her Britannic Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II.
That might be because she is also Queen Elizabeth of Grenada . So it isn,t British territory its the British Queens territory .

[Papewaio]

That might be because she is also Queen Elizabeth of Grenada . So it isn,t British territory its the British Queens territory .

Your statement contradicts itself.

It is the Grenada Queens territory who also happens to be the British Queen... a subtle difference compared with Grenada being the British Queens Territory.

[Soulforged]

Who do are the people of the Falklands descended from?
Which language do the people of the Falklands speak?
Which country do they wish to choose to belong to?Britons, english and Great Britain. Your point is?

Well, that's solved! A Spanish source that few can read and isn't translated... So even if it isn't bias to wards the Spanish point of view, most here can't read it in any case! Sorry, I did said I would not translate it again didn't I, perhaps there's some .org archive, you could go back and take a look at it. I asure you that no briton presented any article outside wikipedia to defend their points (even wikipedia didn't have any arguements), so if it's bias or not it doesn't matter, it presents both sides arguements.

As Papewaio kindly reminds the more dogmatic of members, the people themselves want to be British! How is that not an open and shut case??? Because the people who lived in there before the british were argentinian?
Unless South America gives the indiginous people most of the power and make their languages official, going to historical precidents about some matters and not others appears to be Cherry picking. The way things are now the locals on the mainland are extremely marginalised, and the Falklands want to be British. Deceptively simple...Usual bullcrap about historic regretion. Between that and Malvinas there's a little thing called law.

I remember being put on alert when shots were first fired there; my commander told us that "it was unclear" whose side we were on. That alert only lasted 2 days, and we stood down, quietly.USA always hesitated on their possition towards the conflict, since it initiated in the XIX century. Being on both sides many times, but definetely standing by the british of course.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

:idea2:

Maybe we can move Israel there! Wouldn't that net the support of both the Presidents of Venezuela and Iran?

Who has more experience in occupied territory this last century than Israel?

How could the Argentines oppose such a noble endeavor? :2thumbsup:

[Papewaio]

Because the people who lived in there before the british were argentinian?


Tell you what.

Britain will give the Falklands to Argentina the day after day that Argentina gives back Argentina to the native South Americans...

[Marcellus]

Britons, english and Great Britain. Your point is?

The point is that if almost everyone who actually live on the island want to remain British, then the most obvious country for the islands to belong to is...Britain. Not Argentina.


Sorry, I did said I would not translate it again didn't I, perhaps there's some .org archive, you could go back and take a look at it. I asure you that no briton presented any article outside wikipedia to defend their points (even wikipedia didn't have any arguements), so if it's bias or not it doesn't matter, it presents both sides arguements.

I'm afraid that on an English language forum, English language sources are needed. And even if the website presents both sides of the argument, if it presents it in a biased way, then it still cannot be taken without a pinch of salt. And judging by the picture of a (presumably Argentinian) person grieving at what appears to be a war memorial at the top of the page, I'm guessing it's not entirely neutral.



Because the people who lived in there before the british were argentinian? Usual bullcrap about historic regretion. Between that and Malvinas there's a little thing called law.

The Argentinians who lived there died well over a hundred years ago. The views of the fifth generation islanders take precidence over what happened to the Argentine islanders almost 200 years ago.

The fact is that back in 1833 on whenever it was the British captured the islands the strong contries could take whatever they liked if they had the military strength. It's how the empires were formed.

[KukriKhan]

:idea2:

Maybe we can move Israel there! Wouldn't that net the support of both the Presidents of Venezuela and Iran?

Who has more experience in occupied territory this last century than Israel?

How could the Argentines oppose such a noble endeavor? :2thumbsup:

The irony of that idea is simply delicious. Argentina, a post WWII unofficial haven for ex-nazi's, right next door to an official haven for ex-diaspora jews. That gets the Kukri vote for most outrageously funny proposal of the year. :thumbsup:

As I remember those days in '82, that was the first time I learned the depth of pre-planning we had (not that they were accurate; just that we had 'plans' for so many scenarios). We dusted off the 3 OPLANs that concerned Falklands: 1) defend from mainland S.Am. attack; 2) defend from Euro attack (that was a really old one, from the mid-50's); 3) defend from any attack.

The first 2 scenarios/plans had been war-gamed in the Azores in the 70's. The third only CPX'd (Comman-Post-Exercised - few actual troops moved). For a few tense hours, #3 was the best guess of my commanders. That had me and my unit quite busy, since it involved preparing to move everything, lock, stock, and barrel, to a less-than-familiar theater.

When we got the stand-down order, we were told that "a man on the ground" (presumeably a State Dept guy) had contacted local authorities, and was assured the population claimed Brit fealty - and that some understanding had been reached between 1600 Pennsylvania & 10 Downing.

We went back to normal ops, and I guess the spooks took over from there.

[Louis VI the Fat]

There's no more blind than he who denies to see. LINK (http://www.malvinasonline.com.ar/derech01.php)(in spanish) Hope that answer your questions, it gives both sides arguements, make your guesses and all that. Don't ask for a traduction because I'll not do it again. Cheers.I'll translate it. :jumping:

Your link says:
not since the 1830's has an Argentinian set foot on 'Las Islas Malvinas' without being shot at by the English.

Your turn to translate now:
'Fait accompli'.


(Sorry mate, you're on your own. We'll do some pan-latin Anglo pwnage in another thread)

[Soulforged]

The point is that if almost everyone who actually live on the island want to remain British, then the most obvious country for the islands to belong to is...Britain. Not Argentina.If you followed my discussion here you'll notice that that point is irrelevant, they asked for rights, I gave rights. They asked for rights in that other thread I gave rights, I asked for replies and I only received the usual factual limitation of this days, though I agree with what you say, that's not a valid point against the historical and legal superiority of Argentina's right over Malvinas.

I'm afraid that on an English language forum, English language sources are needed. And even if the website presents both sides of the argument, if it presents it in a biased way, then it still cannot be taken without a pinch of salt. And judging by the picture of a (presumably Argentinian) person grieving at what appears to be a war memorial at the top of the page, I'm guessing it's not entirely neutral.I simply am lost here. Why you would ask? Well I've discussions like this once in a while, no one, ever questions the unbias of the source. However in any discussion I've here, for arbitrary reasons or false reasoning, an article that takes a neutral possition (if you actually read it) can turn in a blink into a biased piece of crap. Yes the site is argentinian, however you'll do well to not judge a book by it's cover.

The Argentinians who lived there died well over a hundred years ago. The views of the fifth generation islanders take precidence over what happened to the Argentine islanders almost 200 years ago.I don't want to remember the legal implications relevant to that statement.

The fact is that back in 1833 on whenever it was the British captured the islands the strong contries could take whatever they liked if they had the military strength. It's how the empires were formed.The fact is that they still can, and they do.

[Soulforged]

The point is that if almost everyone who actually live on the island want to remain British, then the most obvious country for the islands to belong to is...Britain. Not Argentina.If you followed my discussion here you'll notice that that point is irrelevant, they asked for rights, I gave rights. They asked for rights in that other thread I gave rights, I asked for replies and I only received the usual factual limitation of this days, though I agree with what you say, that's not a valid point against the historical and legal superiority of Argentina's right over Malvinas.

I'm afraid that on an English language forum, English language sources are needed. And even if the website presents both sides of the argument, if it presents it in a biased way, then it still cannot be taken without a pinch of salt. And judging by the picture of a (presumably Argentinian) person grieving at what appears to be a war memorial at the top of the page, I'm guessing it's not entirely neutral.I simply am lost here. Why you would ask? Well I've discussions like this once in a while, no one, ever questions the unbias of the source. However in any discussion I've here, for arbitrary reasons or false reasoning, an article that takes a neutral possition (if you actually read it) can turn in a blink into a biased piece of crap. Yes the site is argentinian, however you'll do well to not judge a book by it's cover.

The Argentinians who lived there died well over a hundred years ago. The views of the fifth generation islanders take precidence over what happened to the Argentine islanders almost 200 years ago.I don't want to remember the legal implications relevant to that statement.

The fact is that back in 1833 on whenever it was the British captured the islands the strong contries could take whatever they liked if they had the military strength. It's how the empires were formed.The fact is that they still can, and they do.

I'll translate it. Thanks mate, but you'll never finish.:laugh4:

Your link says:
not since the 1830's has an Argentinian set foot on 'Las Islas Malvinas' without being shot at by the English.:laugh4: The funny thing is that if you search for sites on Malvinas here and there, you'll see some really biased sources, many of them state that the actual armed conflict (1982) was iniciated when an argentinian submarine was attacked in an english harbor, supposedly in a recognition mission.:no:

[rory_20_uk]

Of course the relevant laws you refer to are Argentinian, aren't they? I imagine you can't see any others being relevant... :inquisitive: And again, the only history that is applicable is Argentinian history on this one isolated matter. Again, to try to apply the same logic to anywhere else in South America is simply stupid, right?

You completely lost me on the "I gave rights, you gave rights" bit. But since there are 3 players here: Britain, Falklads and Argentina and 2 out of 3 are happy, well that's the best we're ever likely to do.

~:smoking:

[InsaneApache]

argentinian submarine was attacked in an english harbor, supposedly in a recognition mission.

Grytvyken. An Argentine sub was sunk by a squad (10 men) of Royal Marines who sank her in the habour using ancient anti-tank ordnance.


Balao Class Submarine: Laid down, 1 January 1944, at the Electric Boat Company, Groton, CT.; Launched, 19 November 1944; Commissioned USS Catfish (SS-339), 19 March 1945; Decommissioned, 10 December 1948 for Guppy II conversion; Recommissioned 24 October 1950; Decommissioned, struck from the Naval Register, and transferred (sold) to Argentina, 1 July 1971, renamed Santa Fe; Final Disposition, in 1982 during the Falklands War Santa-Fe was hit by British forces. Deemed too costly to economically repair as a war prize she was sunk in Grytvyken Sound, South Georgia

link (http://www.navsource.org/archives/08/08339.htm)


If you followed my discussion here you'll notice that that point is irrelevant, they asked for rights, I gave rights. They asked for rights in that other thread I gave rights

I'll be generous here and assume something got lost in translation.

[therother]

There are at least a couple of previous threads on the Falklands issue:

Falklands war issues raised in the pope thread
Who rightfully owns the Falkland Isles?

I suspect the latter one has the info Soulforged has been referring to, particularly post 69.

[Lentonius]

if they give up the falklands, they will give gibraltar, then northern ireland, and then possibly wales and scotland, and then the UK will consist of a few small villages in hampshire.

[Red Peasant]

Prior to 1982, if the Argentinians had helped the islanders and invested heavily in the physical and commercial infrastructure of the islands then an amicable and peaceful solution would eventually have been found between Great Britain and Argentina. The islanders were more amenable to this approach than you might think because good relations with Argentina would be a tremendous boon to the island economy. There could have been a practical arrangement, maybe involving dual-citizenship and shared sovereignty to help the people there.
However, what they got was an invasion by a rapacious fascist dictatorship. No wonder they, and mainland Brits, don't trust Argentina. As a country it has to prove itself as stable as well as politically mature and responsible over a long period of time. How can Britain entrust its citizens to the whims of a crackpot South American country? They had a lucky escape last time, and we shouldn't put them in that position again. Argentina has to prove itself, not Britain. Laughably macho Latino rhetoric and threats do nothing to advance the Argentinian cause.

[Lentonius]

good relations with argentinians from the isles will benefit all, such as more trade and things, but i feel that if dual nationality began to emerge it would mean that it will only be a matter of years before britain hands them over.

Not saying handing them over will be a terrible thing, its just that the UK has given up more colonies than some (e.g france), and we should rightfully have our few foreign islands that we have left.
and by showing that giving them to Argentina is acceptable then the spanish will expect us to do the same with gibraltar, and then the whole northern ireland situation will kick off again...

[Meneldil]

SoulForged, I would have thought someone like you wouldn't waste his time over such a silly issue. You keep claiming you don't care about nationalism, but reading this topic, I have a hard time believing it.

This is not a personal attack, I'm just a bit disapointed. :idea2:

[Soulforged]

[QUOTE]Of course the relevant laws you refer to are Argentinian, aren't they? I imagine you can't see any others being relevant... :inquisitive: No. They're international laws, concerning the international community, since the supposed discovery of Malvinas until now.
And again, the only history that is applicable is Argentinian history on this one isolated matter.No, all history is relevant.
Again, to try to apply the same logic to anywhere else in South America is simply stupid, right?No. But the discussion surrounds the subject of better rights, ie: who has the best claim concerning law. If you put law as a factor, and a big factor it's (almost a cult nowdays), then you'll have to divide the rightfully conquered for those that aren't, cold perspective but the law is usually very cold.

You completely lost me on the "I gave rights, you gave rights" bit. But since there are 3 players here: Britain, Falklads and Argentina and 2 out of 3 are happy, well that's the best we're ever likely to do.Why? I assume it's for the word "right" then I've clearified that.

Grytvyken. An Argentine sub was sunk by a squad (10 men) of Royal Marines who sank her in the habour using ancient anti-tank ordnance. But that link doesn't says anything about who started the war. I'm not saying that this didn't happen, just that in those pages it's described in alternative ways that tend to be biased.

I'll be generous here and assume something got lost in translation.Again I don't know why? But I suppose that it's clarified above.

I suspect the latter one has the info Soulforged has been referring to, particularly post 69.Yes that is it. Thanks.

How can Britain entrust its citizens to the whims of a crackpot South American country? They had a lucky escape last time, and we shouldn't put them in that position again. Argentina has to prove itself, not Britain. Laughably macho Latino rhetoric and threats do nothing to advance the Argentinian cause.Crackpot country? Well this shows it all then. "Latino macho rethoric", no entiendo. Threats? Where?

SoulForged, I would have thought someone like you wouldn't waste his time over such a silly issue. You keep claiming you don't care about nationalism, but reading this topic, I have a hard time believing it.So for defending what I believe is true, and supporting it with facts, I get this? No, I'm not nationalist, in fact if I didn't have any personal debts here I would get out, but I must take care of my family, and I don't have the means to get out. I've never defended my country without reason, or any other for that matter (within the bounds of my knowledge), in fact it could be said that I tend to have perjudice against my country.

[InsaneApache]

But that link doesn't says anything about who started the war. I'm not saying that this didn't happen, just that in those pages it's described in alternative ways that tend to be biased.

The Argentine government did. That is a matter of fact. If you can't even get that minute detail right....deary me.

The attack by the Royal Marines on the hostile Argentine submarine 'Santa Fe' that had invaded Grytvyken sound is also a matter of fact.

As for international law deciding that a free and democratic people should have to upsticks and move because a neighbouring state has a very tenuous claim on their lands, well that shows your (dubious) democratic credentials. ~:handball:

[Soulforged]

The Argentine government did. That is a matter of fact. If you can't even get that minute detail right....deary me.I learned this term not so long ago: "Strawman" is it? Read again Apache not what I stated, not even what I believe to be true.:2thumbsup:

As for international law deciding that a free and democratic people should have to upsticks and move because a neighbouring state has a very tenuous claim on their lands, well that shows your (dubious) democratic credentials.You're a lawyer right, so you should know a lot more than me, both of international law and of the two major possitions on the relationship between law and morals. What you're stating is a current and common possition between the countries of the common law, iusnaturalism. There's another fact, it's that argentinians habited the island long ago, they were attacked by english and the english occupied the land. There's another fact, at the time there was a series of laws (tough the eclesiastic norms don't apply) that protected our rights over the land (they're on the article). Now if you put yourself in that possition then you'll always respect the morality above the law (wheter it's unjust or not) and I like that possition, but as pragmatism goes, not always it ends on justice. You must at least admit that this subject is discussable, and that some take the iusnaturalist (juridic-natural) possition and other the iuspositive (juridic-positive).