For those of you that don't know, the residents of the Falkland Islands recently voted to remain a British overseas territory to the tune of a 99.8% majority.
I was curious whether this result maybe changes opinion on Argentina's claim on the islands? There is an argument that because the population was 'planted' by the Brits, then it isn't valid, but many of the residents are 8 or 9th generation islanders, so at what point do they become an indigenous population?
So that I don't get accused of being a colonial Brit, I'll add that I'm hoping my own nation vote to split from the uk in the next couple of years (Scotland), but as far as I'm concerned, if the residents of the islands have voted to remain attached to the uk, then their democratic wishes should be honoured by the international community.
I don't know whether I count as an Anglophile, and I am certainly rather wary of revived British nationalism, but I supported Britain's claim on the Falklands before this referendum. Now, it seems there should be no further question on the issue.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I mean the only times that the British aren't cool is when they're going about hating themselves because they're awesome.
Nationalism in Britain can have some rather dark undertones - the 'British national party', which claim to be a nationalist party, are really just a cesspit of racists and homophobes. It's more about hating people different to the prescribed 'white Englishman' than celebrating the positive aspects of nationalism.
As a result, the word nationalism can be viewed in a negative light here.
Eggs wrote: For those of you that don't know, the residents of the Falkland Islands recently voted to remain a British overseas territory to the tune of a 99.8% majority.
I was curious whether this result maybe changes opinion on Argentina's claim on the islands? There is an argument that because the population was 'planted' by the Brits, then it isn't valid, but many of the residents are 8 or 9th generation islanders, so at what point do they become an indigenous population?
So that I don't get accused of being a colonial Brit, I'll add that I'm hoping my own nation vote to split from the uk in the next couple of years (Scotland), but as far as I'm concerned, if the residents of the islands have voted to remain attached to the uk, then their democratic wishes should be honoured by the international community.
Answers on a postcard!
The Argentinian president just called them a bunch of squatters.
Agreed Eggs, Nationalism, as opposed to Patriotism, is an ugly thing, though the two are frequently confused. A great quote that explains the difference is this:
"The difference between patriotism and nationalism is that the patriot is proud of his country for what it does, and the nationalist is proud of his country no matter what it does; the first attitude creates a feeling of responsibility, but the second a feeling of blind arrogance that leads to war."
Sydney J. Harris
I can’t remember where I first heard it, but it’s always stuck with me.
Anyway in regards to the Falklands the matter is fairly cut and dry. There is no ‘indigenous’ population that was displaced to make way for the Islanders which makes them the default native pollution. Argentina didn’t even exist as a country when the Islands was first settled so they cannot claim to have had them 'stolen'. They have no basis for claim aside from geographical proximity. If this was sufficient then France could demand Jersey or Canada lay claim to Alaska.
If the Islanders wish to remain British then that should be the end of the matter. Self determination is the right of any peoples.
I just wish that Argentina would stop being such sanctimoneous feths about it. It's not about "colonialism" or "imperialism", it's about the dang oil now, and pretty much everyone knows it. If the islanders who have lived there for 9 generations say they want to remain British, then let them. No one lived there before they got there and it's been British for almost as long as Argentina's been a sovereign nation. Considering Argentina dropped it's dispute in 1849 and didn't take it up again until almost 100 years later (1941), the islands obviously can't be that important to them.
EDIT: I don't know how international law works, but couldn't one claim that it's a case of usucaption and that, since Argentina dropped the case for a century, the islands are, both de jure and de facto, the property of the United Kingdom?
To put the referendum in perspective a grand total of 3 people voted for the island to cease to be a British territory. There is literally nothing that the Argentinians can do about this. They have no realistic legal claim, the inhabitants have voted in a referendum to remain British, which will be respected by the internation community and the UN, and if they try to invade again they will be extremely lucky to even make landfall. Its high time to move on.
I think the referendum was a waste of time if it was expected to change Argentina's mind; to me it was more to convince the rest of the world.
Who cares if Argentina doesn't like it so long as the rest of the world support it? Argentina has made it very clear that self-determination is meaningless to them; can any other country, developing or developed, really risk saying the same thing?
Hopefully Kirchner will be voted out in the next election (this whole charade was only started to try and secure her another term, after all), at which point I hope this issue will be laid to rest for a while.
Palindrome wrote: To put the referendum in perspective a grand total of 3 people voted for the island to cease to be a British territory. There is literally nothing that the Argentinians can do about this. They have no realistic legal claim, the inhabitants have voted in a referendum to remain British, which will be respected by the internation community and the UN, and if they try to invade again they will be extremely lucky to even make landfall. Its high time to move on.
Well... if they invade again...
Would the UK invade Argentina? Or, a least carve out a territory like the old Hong Kong?
I don't think the uk would carve out Argentinian territory, but if they were provoked into another conflict, I don't think the fighting would be limited to just the islands a second time around. I wouldn't be surprised if a few missiles were hurled at buenos aires to try and put the matter to bed permanently.
Palindrome wrote: To put the referendum in perspective a grand total of 3 people voted for the island to cease to be a British territory. There is literally nothing that the Argentinians can do about this. They have no realistic legal claim, the inhabitants have voted in a referendum to remain British, which will be respected by the internation community and the UN, and if they try to invade again they will be extremely lucky to even make landfall. Its high time to move on.
Well... if they invade again...
Would the UK invade Argentina? Or, a least carve out a territory like the old Hong Kong?
No. There's no point in it and it'd lose them international goodwill. Standing as the valiant defenders of the people against the tyrrany of oppression is a much more positive image than standing as the omnicidical murdering angel retaliating with extreme prejudice. Just look at the history of the US the last 10-15 years.
Avatar 720 wrote: I think the referendum was a waste of time if it was expected to change Argentina's mind; to me it was more to convince the rest of the world.
Who cares if Argentina doesn't like it so long as the rest of the world support it? Argentina has made it very clear that self-determination is meaningless to them; can any other country, developing or developed, really risk saying the same thing?
Hopefully Kirchner will be voted out in the next election (this whole charade was only started to try and secure her another term, after all), at which point I hope this issue will be laid to rest for a while.
Almost certainly. With Argentina attempting to conjure the spectre of colonialism in an effort to attach negative stigma to British control of the islands, the referendum is a useful tool in the battle for hearts and minds, it focuses the issue on those most affected by it.
Eggs wrote: I don't think the uk would carve out Argentinian territory, but if they were provoked into another conflict, I don't think the fighting would be limited to just the islands a second time around. I wouldn't be surprised if a few missiles were hurled at buenos aires to try and put the matter to bed permanently.
I think lobbing a few missiles into Buenos Aires indiscriminately would be the worst thing that the UK could do if invaded. However, it's highly unlikely that Argentina will do anything but sabre rattle.
Sabre rattling definitely, but we are back to an Argentina with a tanking economy, desperate leadership and protests in the streets... And we are without Aircraft carriers this time.
No carriers, no jump jets. Our navy looks shoddy in comparison to where we were 30 years ago.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Sabre rattling definitely, but we are back to an Argentina with a tanking economy, desperate leadership and protests in the streets... And we are without Aircraft carriers this time.
No carriers, no jump jets. Our navy looks shoddy in comparison to where we were 30 years ago.
It was pretty shoddy back then already. Our fleet was supplemented with cruise ships.
And the single Vulcan bombing raid we managed necessitated a ridiculously complex system of tankers refuelling tankers to refuel Vulcans.
One problem is that almost Argentinians were European a few short centuries ago.
What happened to the original South Americans?
It all seems to boil down to the Argentinians seem to having been in the area longer, and want everything around them.
The Brits turned up later.
As for the referendum, They just asked the British Falkland Islanders whether they want to stay there and stay British, or allow the Argies to move in in their place.
What did they think the answer would be?
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Sabre rattling definitely, but we are back to an Argentina with a tanking economy, desperate leadership and protests in the streets... And we are without Aircraft carriers this time.
No carriers, no jump jets. Our navy looks shoddy in comparison to where we were 30 years ago.
It was pretty shoddy back then already. Our fleet was supplemented with cruise ships.
And the single Vulcan bombing raid we managed necessitated a ridiculously complex system of tankers refuelling tankers to refuel Vulcans.
We could trade trade Diego Garcia for refuelling operations.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Sabre rattling definitely, but we are back to an Argentina with a tanking economy, desperate leadership and protests in the streets... And we are without Aircraft carriers this time.
No carriers, no jump jets. Our navy looks shoddy in comparison to where we were 30 years ago.
It was pretty shoddy back then already. Our fleet was supplemented with cruise ships.
And the single Vulcan bombing raid we managed necessitated a ridiculously complex system of tankers refuelling tankers to refuel Vulcans.
I'm not quite up to date on our modern navy, but I get the impression that we'd be relying quite heavily on the Type 45 destroyers, assisted by the Typhoons stationed on the islands.
Eggs wrote: For those of you that don't know, the residents of the Falkland Islands recently voted to remain a British overseas territory to the tune of a 99.8% majority.
I was curious whether this result maybe changes opinion on Argentina's claim on the islands? There is an argument that because the population was 'planted' by the Brits, then it isn't valid, but many of the residents are 8 or 9th generation islanders, so at what point do they become an indigenous population?
So that I don't get accused of being a colonial Brit, I'll add that I'm hoping my own nation vote to split from the uk in the next couple of years (Scotland), but as far as I'm concerned, if the residents of the islands have voted to remain attached to the uk, then their democratic wishes should be honoured by the international community.
Answers on a postcard!
The Argentines don't claim the people, just the land. This is basically the same as if the US landed colonists on some uninhabited rock in the South China Sea, and then the colonists had a referendum on whether or not they wanted to remain part of the United States or become a Chinese territory (the difference being that the Falkland Islanders have been there for over a century and the colonists haven't... but Argentina has laid claim to the islands since the start regardless).
(In case you can't tell, I support the Argentine claim over the islands, even if its only because I find the situation highly amusing)
The Argentines don't claim the people, just the land. This is basically the same as if the US landed colonists on some uninhabited rock in the South China Sea, and then the colonists had a referendum on whether or not they wanted to remain part of the United States or become a Chinese territory (the difference being that the Falkland Islanders have been there for over a century and the colonists haven't... but Argentina has laid claim to the islands since the start regardless).
(In case you can't tell, I support the Argentine claim over the islands, even if its only because I find the situation highly amusing)
Eggs wrote: For those of you that don't know, the residents of the Falkland Islands recently voted to remain a British overseas territory to the tune of a 99.8% majority.
I was curious whether this result maybe changes opinion on Argentina's claim on the islands? There is an argument that because the population was 'planted' by the Brits, then it isn't valid, but many of the residents are 8 or 9th generation islanders, so at what point do they become an indigenous population?
So that I don't get accused of being a colonial Brit, I'll add that I'm hoping my own nation vote to split from the uk in the next couple of years (Scotland), but as far as I'm concerned, if the residents of the islands have voted to remain attached to the uk, then their democratic wishes should be honoured by the international community.
Answers on a postcard!
The Argentines don't claim the people, just the land. This is basically the same as if the US landed colonists on some uninhabited rock in the South China Sea, and then the colonists had a referendum on whether or not they wanted to remain part of the United States or become a Chinese territory (the difference being that the Falkland Islanders have been there for over a century and the colonists haven't... but Argentina has laid claim to the islands since the start regardless).
(In case you can't tell, I support the Argentine claim over the islands, even if its only because I find the situation highly amusing)
Americans who come in on the side of Argentina annoy me almost as much as Americans who think we're forcing occupation on the people of Northern Ireland. It's sheer bloody ignorance of the situation and its history.
I was curious whether this result maybe changes opinion on Argentina's claim on the islands?
I've always been of the opinion that Argentina's claim is based on proximity, and force of arms. Meaning that, when the British are no longer capable of defending their claim to the Falklands, it will become Argentine territory. The actual residents of the Falklands are irrelevant.
I was curious whether this result maybe changes opinion on Argentina's claim on the islands?
I've always been of the opinion that Argentina's claim is based on proximity, and force of arms. Meaning that, when the British are no longer capable of defending their claim to the Falklands, it will become Argentine territory. The actual residents of the Falklands are irrelevant.
Then they are best served trying to take them now, the next generation aircraft carriers Elizabeth II and Prince of Wales are still both 3 or more years off being ready.
Also, apparently the Pope and the Argentinian premier are bitter rivals, so perhaps he'll shift tack now.
Eggs wrote: For those of you that don't know, the residents of the Falkland Islands recently voted to remain a British overseas territory to the tune of a 99.8% majority.
I was curious whether this result maybe changes opinion on Argentina's claim on the islands? There is an argument that because the population was 'planted' by the Brits, then it isn't valid, but many of the residents are 8 or 9th generation islanders, so at what point do they become an indigenous population?
So that I don't get accused of being a colonial Brit, I'll add that I'm hoping my own nation vote to split from the uk in the next couple of years (Scotland), but as far as I'm concerned, if the residents of the islands have voted to remain attached to the uk, then their democratic wishes should be honoured by the international community.
Answers on a postcard!
The Argentines don't claim the people, just the land. This is basically the same as if the US landed colonists on some uninhabited rock in the South China Sea, and then the colonists had a referendum on whether or not they wanted to remain part of the United States or become a Chinese territory (the difference being that the Falkland Islanders have been there for over a century and the colonists haven't... but Argentina has laid claim to the islands since the start regardless).
(In case you can't tell, I support the Argentine claim over the islands, even if its only because I find the situation highly amusing)
Americans who come in on the side of Argentina annoy me almost as much as Americans who think we're forcing occupation on the people of Northern Ireland. It's sheer bloody ignorance of the situation and its history.
Oh, oh , oh, can I play this game too?
British who come in on the side of the Palestinians annoy me almost as much as British who think they can handwave away firearms in the US. It's sheer blood ignorance of the situation and it's history.
How did I do?
Sidenote: I'm on Britains side in this one. The quoted comment just made me laugh out loud at work.
Its because you have a romanticised view of the fight against colonialism, we're oppressing the Irish and stealing stuff off Argentina, etc. Several times on this board I've seen people express surprise that there are still bombings and killings in Northern Ireland even from those I would have thought were well informed. So when I see Americans talking about feeing the Irish from British oppression or saying that we're wrongfully holding the Falklands under colonial rule, I have to guess ignorance, because a history book would show it's a lot more complicated than that. There's very little justification for Argentina to have the Falklands any more than others that have held it. If it was a matter of proximity then Alaska would presumably belong to Canada, actually there's a history behind ownership.
Ratbarf wrote:Why are you wary of British Nationalism?
Automatically Appended Next Post: I mean the only times that the British aren't cool is when they're going about hating themselves because they're awesome.
Or when their worhtless figureheads decide to go on a very expensive vacation paid for with my tax dollars.
I really do not understand how, after that referendum, anyone except for Britain can even hope to make a claim to the Falklands anymore.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Its because you have a romanticised view of the fight against colonialism, we're oppressing the Irish and stealing stuff off Argentina, etc. Several times on this board I've seen people express surprise that there are still bombings and killings in Northern Ireland even from those I would have thought were well informed. So when I see Americans talking about feeing the Irish from British oppression or saying that we're wrongfully holding the Falklands under colonial rule, I have to guess ignorance, because a history book would show it's a lot more complicated than that. There's very little justification for Argentina to have the Falklands any more than others that have held it. If it was a matter of proximity then Alaska would presumably belong to Canada, actually there's a history behind ownership.
Not seeing anyone here from the US supporting Argentina's claim. Not sure what you're talking about.
azazel the cat wrote: I really do not understand how, after that referendum, anyone except for Britain can even hope to make a claim to the Falklands anymore.
The Argentines may think of the current occupants as British squatters who need to go along with British rule generally. In that case, a referendum is meaningless. Of course, I can't see such an eviction as getting too much traction internationally.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Not seeing anyone here from the US supporting Argentina's claim. Not sure what you're talking about.
This poster flies an American flag:
chaos0xomega wrote: (In case you can't tell, I support the Argentine claim over the islands, even if its only because I find the situation highly amusing)
The long and short of it is that some Falklanders are in their ninth generation on the islands.They voted overwhelmingly to retain their British heritage and should be free to live how they wish.
Oh I'm glad it was brought to my attention that I "have a romanticised view of the fight against colonialism, you're oppressing the Irish and stealing stuff off Argentina, etc.". Thank you.
I've personally been equally surprised by people flying the british flag's lack of understanding of US law, the constitution, and amendments making sweeping declaration about gun control. Don't get me started on comments made regarding the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
Add in the fact that to this point the only person on Argentina's side is on it to amuse himself in this thread (likely not actually on their side) and said nothing about oppression or Ireland and tell me you didn't go a little overboard.....
It really does seem to be sabre-rattling - essentially to draw attention away from the yawning void that is the Argentine economy, however, I don't think the overtures that Argentina are making should be ignored - I wouldn't be surprised if desperation meant eventually that the sabre that is getting "rattled" eventually gets drawn.
And I fail to see how the Falklands conflict, and the threat of a second war, however likely or unlikely the prospect, is in any way "highly amusing".
Oh I'm glad it was brought to my attention that I "have a romanticised view of the fight against colonialism, you're oppressing the Irish and stealing stuff off Argentina, etc.". Thank you.
I've personally been equally surprised by people flying the british flag's lack of understanding of US law, the constitution, and amendments making sweeping declaration about gun control. Don't get me started on comments made regarding the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
Add in the fact that to this point the only person on Argentina's side is on it to amuse himself in this thread (likely not actually on their side) and said nothing about oppression or Ireland and tell me you didn't go a little overboard.....
Free the Welsh! Oppression! Oppression! Witness the violence inherent in the system!
Last time the Argies invaded, there was little or no military presence on the FI.
We have Typhoons there now, and type 45 destroyers, plus I wouldn't be at all surprised if a sub was lurking about with a load of cruise missiles on board.
Not to mention the soldiers.
The Argentine military is in a worse state than last time.
We may not have the carriers any more, but we don't need them as we have an actual airfield this time.
Plus the fact that a naval landing would be a touch tricky as the beaches are still littered with all the land mines that they left lying around last time they visited.
Here's me visiting a few years ago, I was surveying for oil at the time.
That's me in the middle
The problem is with the Foreign Office. They are useless and sit about doing little to nothing.
The Uk claim goes beyond self determination, if you look at how and when the islands were settled Argentina frankly has no claim, yet they are making headway in the international community. Yes this is mostly due to the fact that its easier to cheat the Argentines out of the oil wealth than the UK, and backers of an invasion will expect to be paid in oil rights. Nevertheless this doesn't effect the broad popular appeal of the Argentina cause, which frankly shouldn't be there.
Sure the UK is know for historical Imperialism, but so were the Spanish. As for the legal status of the islands it is a very clear cut case, but the case is not being propagated wheras the Argentine claim is shouted far and wide. A one sided argument gathers momentum. What is odd is that the press refer to it is as 'spat' even though one side says little to nothing. It would be naive to consider that the Argentine claim could be educated away, but at least if the reidiculous nature of the claim is more widely known less pressure on the UK would result.
Frazzled wrote: Not seeing anyone here from the US supporting Argentina's claim. Not sure what you're talking about.
This poster flies an American flag:
chaos0xomega wrote: (In case you can't tell, I support the Argentine claim over the islands, even if its only because I find the situation highly amusing)
I thought he was No True American.
On topic, I only have an understanding of the entire situation I'd describe as "slightly above that of an average 'merican".
Having that been said, I'm on neither sides side. I say they belong where they want to belong.
The inhabitants of the islands want to stick with the British. That's good enough for me.
Kilkrazy wrote: The Falklands are used by the Argentinian government in times of national stress to direct the people's anger outwards.
Indeed but there is more to it now. You have to add that to oil, plus the poor state of both economies, a hostile White House, short sighted politicians and Civil servants in London, a one sided campaign of rhetoric and a lack of aircraft carriers.
Orlanth wrote: The problem is with the Foreign Office. They are useless and sit about doing little to nothing.
The Uk claim goes beyond self determination, if you look at how and when the islands were settled Argentina frankly has no claim, yet they are making headway in the international community. Yes this is mostly due to the fact that its easier to cheat the Argentines out of the oil wealth than the UK, and backers of an invasion will expect to be paid in oil rights. Nevertheless this doesn't effect the broad popular appeal of the Argentina cause, which frankly shouldn't be there.
Sure the UK is know for historical Imperialism, but so were the Spanish. As for the legal status of the islands it is a very clear cut case, but the case is not being propagated wheras the Argentine claim is shouted far and wide. A one sided argument gathers momentum. What is odd is that the press refer to it is as 'spat' even though one side says little to nothing. It would be naive to consider that the Argentine claim could be educated away, but at least if the reidiculous nature of the claim is more widely known less pressure on the UK would result.
You're thinking Argentina is making headway? I don't see that, not a meaningful way beyond protest level nonsense.
Just keep your troops and aircraft safely bunkered in and punch anything in the nose that gets uppity. That should do the trick. After all, its the legions that make the law legal.
Argentina has no real hankering for war. After all IIRC but they've lost every war they've been in.
So the Argentinian claim that was based on "its close to us so its ours", no has no moral force to go with its no legal force. I just get the impression that Ms. Kirchner is stirring the pot to detract from trouble at home.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Forget the Welsh, what about the Cornish? They even have their own terrorists, the Cornish Liberation Army.
I can't remember who it was but when a journalist from the UK was talking to the Taliban pre-9/11 this cropped up. The Taliban member looked very thoughtful and asked if the Cornish needed any help in their rebellion
Kilkrazy wrote: The Falklands are used by the Argentinian government in times of national stress to direct the people's anger outwards.
Indeed but there is more to it now. You have to add that to oil, plus the poor state of both economies, a hostile White House, short sighted politicians and Civil servants in London, a one sided campaign of rhetoric and a lack of aircraft carriers.
Aircraft carriers would be needed to take back the islands after a successful invasion. But looking at the state of the Argentine Navy, how would they ever manage to invade?
I've personally been equally surprised by people flying the british flag's lack of understanding of US law, the constitution, and amendments making sweeping declaration about gun control.
Actually, I think most of us understand the legal and emotional attachment to firearms, it just seems a little silly. Especially when you consider that the times change (that's what they do best) and that a constitution is just words, written by men centuries ago, and not handed down by gods.
Don't get me started on comments made regarding the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
Americans are by far typically the worst culprits when it comes to shallow and juvenile analyses of that particular conflict. Do you deny this?
Oh I'm glad it was brought to my attention that I "have a romanticised view of the fight against colonialism, you're oppressing the Irish and stealing stuff off Argentina, etc.". Thank you.
I've personally been equally surprised by people flying the british flag's lack of understanding of US law, the constitution, and amendments making sweeping declaration about gun control. Don't get me started on comments made regarding the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
Add in the fact that to this point the only person on Argentina's side is on it to amuse himself in this thread (likely not actually on their side) and said nothing about oppression or Ireland and tell me you didn't go a little overboard.....
Free the Welsh! Oppression! Oppression! Witness the violence inherent in the system!
Dont joke about such things without considering that there may be people on here who want a Wales free of total control from England.
So this thread specifically asks about international opinions on this, and now people are complaining that international members are posting with different opinions?
I've personally been equally surprised by people flying the british flag's lack of understanding of US law, the constitution, and amendments making sweeping declaration about gun control.
Actually, I think most of us understand the legal and emotional attachment to firearms, it just seems a little silly. Especially when you consider that the times change (that's what they do best) and that a constitution is just words, written by men centuries ago, and not handed down by gods.
Perfect example of you not really having a clue why firearms are really important.
They are a deterrent against, and a tool for removing, tyrannical government. The danger of which is very present and always will be.
dogma wrote: I didn't realize that the Holy See had a claim to the Falklands.
Why be obtuse with me? He spoke as an Argentine prelate then; he's not an Argentine prelate anymore.
I suppose I don't understand why you seem to think that a Catholic official who has plainly spoken publicly as something other than a mere Catholic official would change his habits.
I mean, even by strict definition he is still an Argentine prelate, it just so happens that his prelature is a bit larger than it formerly was.
Thing is, you don't get to pick where you're born. People love to talk about a region historically belonging to this group or that group, but to someone who got born on the Falklands 35 years ago, the place is just home, same as wherever you were born is home.
And nothing gets to trump that. The Falklands isn't being flooded with new British migrants, it's just got the people who were born there. And they want to be British, and Britain wants to have them, and from there anything Argentina has to say about is just stupid noise.
chaos0xomega wrote: The Argentines don't claim the people, just the land. This is basically the same as if the US landed colonists on some uninhabited rock in the South China Sea, and then the colonists had a referendum on whether or not they wanted to remain part of the United States or become a Chinese territory (the difference being that the Falkland Islanders have been there for over a century and the colonists haven't... but Argentina has laid claim to the islands since the start regardless).
Once those Americans have been on that rock for nine generations, the situation has become a very fething different thing.
Hulksmash wrote: British who come in on the side of the Palestinians annoy me almost as much as British who think they can handwave away firearms in the US. It's sheer blood ignorance of the situation and it's history.
What the feth?
Have you heard of British Palestine? Do you have any fething clue at all who was there before the country was given over to the Jews?
I mean, you want to talk about ignorance of history...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hulksmash wrote: Don't get me started on comments made regarding the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
You're approach to that issue is working under the impression that it's an American issue, of which the British have never been involved. So please, far from getting you started, I'd ask you to promise to never ever start on the issue. Ever.
Hulksmash wrote: British who come in on the side of the Palestinians annoy me almost as much as British who think they can handwave away firearms in the US. It's sheer blood ignorance of the situation and it's history.
What the feth?
Have you heard of British Palestine? Do you have any fething clue at all who was there before the country was given over to the Jews?
I mean, you want to talk about ignorance of history...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hulksmash wrote: Don't get me started on comments made regarding the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
You're approach to that issue is working under the impression that it's an American issue, of which the British have never been involved. So please, far from getting you started, I'd ask you to promise to never ever start on the issue. Ever.
Yeah... it was the British idea to create an Israeli state in the first place if I recall. The US was hesitant about it, but eventually backed the British.
The whole thing is ridiculous at the end of the day. You have a load of people descended from European colonists telling another load of people descended from European colonists that they have no right to live there because there descended from European colonists. And the former group of European colonists has divine right to the land of the latter European colonists, because the Empire Britain gave lives to help kick out of there Country claimed the Falklands. Confused I know I am
The stupidity of Politicians knows know bounds, there are still communities is Argentina that speak Welsh. A significant percentage of them are descended from Britains. The lowest Percentage of native peoples in South America though, thats what happens when you kill them........wooops bad Argentina
They are a deterrent against, and a tool for removing, tyrannical government. The danger of which is very present and always will be.
I always find this hilarious.
Civilian-grade firearms: keeping the black helicopter population under control since 1776.
Actually on topic: the Falklands are British, by right of occupation, by consent of the inhabitants, and by right of force. Argentina has no claim to them.
On a similar note: I've never understood the justification for divesting themselves of their foreign holdings, particularly in the case of handing Hong-Kong over to the PRC. Or the desire for tiny, weak nations that are territories or protectorates of major powers to want to be their own country, aside from the most suicidal form of nationalism.
Oh I'm glad it was brought to my attention that I "have a romanticised view of the fight against colonialism, you're oppressing the Irish and stealing stuff off Argentina, etc.". Thank you.
I've personally been equally surprised by people flying the british flag's lack of understanding of US law, the constitution, and amendments making sweeping declaration about gun control. Don't get me started on comments made regarding the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
Add in the fact that to this point the only person on Argentina's side is on it to amuse himself in this thread (likely not actually on their side) and said nothing about oppression or Ireland and tell me you didn't go a little overboard.....
Free the Welsh! Oppression! Oppression! Witness the violence inherent in the system!
Dont joke about such things without considering that there may be people on here who want a Wales free of total control from England.
Free the Whalesh!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: So this thread specifically asks about international opinions on this, and now people are complaining that international members are posting with different opinions?
I blame the Clinton Whitehouse. If only someone had thought of the children.
pgmason wrote: Hong Kong was a very different situation - it was only ever leased from China on a 99 year lease. When the lease ran out, ownership reverted.
So why did it go to the PRC, and not China? The PRC never managed to wipe out the legitimate government of China, recall.
Albatross wrote: Isn't the Welsh-speaking enclave in Peru? Or am I remembering that incorrectly?
Peru is not Argentina...but there could be. I wonder if they ever went to war with the German "colonists" who appeared shortly after a certain...er tiff.
The Argentines don't claim the people, just the land. This is basically the same as if the US landed colonists on some uninhabited rock in the South China Sea, and then the colonists had a referendum on whether or not they wanted to remain part of the United States or become a Chinese territory (the difference being that the Falkland Islanders have been there for over a century and the colonists haven't... but Argentina has laid claim to the islands since the start regardless).
(In case you can't tell, I support the Argentine claim over the islands, even if its only because I find the situation highly amusing)
The war dead do not share your sense of humor.
You never know, the Brits have an odd sense of humor. During the first war, the crew of one of the ships that was sunk sat on the deck waiting to be picked up singing "Always look on the bright side of life" from Monty Python...
Eggs wrote: For those of you that don't know, the residents of the Falkland Islands recently voted to remain a British overseas territory to the tune of a 99.8% majority.
I was curious whether this result maybe changes opinion on Argentina's claim on the islands? There is an argument that because the population was 'planted' by the Brits, then it isn't valid, but many of the residents are 8 or 9th generation islanders, so at what point do they become an indigenous population?
So that I don't get accused of being a colonial Brit, I'll add that I'm hoping my own nation vote to split from the uk in the next couple of years (Scotland), but as far as I'm concerned, if the residents of the islands have voted to remain attached to the uk, then their democratic wishes should be honoured by the international community.
Answers on a postcard!
The Argentines don't claim the people, just the land. This is basically the same as if the US landed colonists on some uninhabited rock in the South China Sea, and then the colonists had a referendum on whether or not they wanted to remain part of the United States or become a Chinese territory (the difference being that the Falkland Islanders have been there for over a century and the colonists haven't... but Argentina has laid claim to the islands since the start regardless).
(In case you can't tell, I support the Argentine claim over the islands, even if its only because I find the situation highly amusing)
Americans who come in on the side of Argentina annoy me almost as much as Americans who think we're forcing occupation on the people of Northern Ireland. It's sheer bloody ignorance of the situation and its history.
Northern Ireland is an issue I know little about and don't get involved in. Argentinas claim to the Falkland Islands however is something I DO know a great deal about, and I have to tell you that if you had any understanding of the history then you would see that Argentina has had a legitimate claim to the islands for over a century now (and approaching two), at least in so far that a nation can lay claim to territory they lost to an invading force.
Add in the fact that to this point the only person on Argentina's side is on it to amuse himself in this thread (likely not actually on their side) and said nothing about oppression or Ireland and tell me you didn't go a little overboard.....
Yup... I mean, Argentina does have the ability to make a legitimate claim to the islands based on history. The fact that there are people living there really makes no difference either, I mean, if you want you can make that claim, but if you do then I say we should give Germany back East Prussia, and Danzig, and all the territory they lost to Poland considering that there were plenty of Germans living there even before the outbreak of war that had absolutely no desire to be part of Poland... of course you won't support such a thing, because that would require you to recognize the double standard you are arguing in favor of...
And I fail to see how the Falklands conflict, and the threat of a second war, however likely or unlikely the prospect, is in any way "highly amusing".
The unlikelihood of the war, and the likelihood of what would result in said war (nothing, as neither side is really capable of doing anything to the other) is exactly what makes it so amusing.
The Uk claim goes beyond self determination, if you look at how and when the islands were settled Argentina frankly has no claim, yet they are making headway in the international community. Yes this is mostly due to the fact that its easier to cheat the Argentines out of the oil wealth than the UK, and backers of an invasion will expect to be paid in oil rights. Nevertheless this doesn't effect the broad popular appeal of the Argentina cause, which frankly shouldn't be there.
You mean how the Argentines claimed the island and then the Brits colonized it and then forced the Argentines out more or less at gunpoint, and the Argentines issued protests every year for about 20 years before stopping for 30 before picking it up again in the late 1800s, only to be completely ignored year after year by the Brits until some time in the 1940s where the British government more or less said feth off? That 'no claim' thing? Britains claim is based on the idea that they 'claimed it first and settled it first' in the the late 1600s, except the French were the first to claim the islands, and passed the islands along to Spain, who in turn passed them to Argentina (or as it was then known the United Provinces of the River Plate).
Once those Americans have been on that rock for nine generations, the situation has become a very fething different thing.
Well, you see, when the Chinese have claimed the rock for almost the entirety of those nine generations, save a roughly 30 year gap somewhere around generation 2 or 3, , no it really doesn't in my opinion.
Actually on topic: the Falklands are British, by right of occupation, by consent of the inhabitants, and by right of force. Argentina has no claim to them.
The bolded parts are really the only legitimate portions of that, otherwise do you want to tell me that Israeli settlements are in the clear and the Palestinians should just suck it up because there are Israelis living their now? Even though, you know, the Palestinians that WERE living there (much like the Argentinians) were removed by force?
dogma wrote: I suppose I don't understand why you seem to think that a Catholic official who has plainly spoken publicly as something other than a mere Catholic official would change his habits.
I mean, even by strict definition he is still an Argentine prelate, it just so happens that his prelature is a bit larger than it formerly was.
To clarify, he's not the bishop of Argentine people any more. The office changes the man. Where one may be able to speak a certain way in one office, one cannot or does not desire to do the same in another office. Your original comment was that the pope had weighed in on this issue. That's sloppy usage. An Argentine bishop who is now the pope weighed in on the issue.
I was curious whether this result maybe changes opinion on Argentina's claim on the islands? There is an argument that because the population was 'planted' by the Brits, then it isn't valid, but many of the residents are 8 or 9th generation islanders, so at what point do they become an indigenous population?
The current population are the indigenous islanders. There was no human settlement before them over most of the land. Those settlements that predate were restricted to small corners of the islands and will be dealt with below:
Argentinas claim to the Falkland Islands however is something I DO know a great deal about, and I have to tell you that if you had any understanding of the history then you would see that Argentina has had a legitimate claim to the islands for over a century now (and approaching two),.....
No you dont know a 'great deal' about it based on what you wrote above.
The UK claimed the islands in 1690 when Captian John Strong RN set foot there, the first human to do so, and the British settled them in 1765, before Argentina existed. The British settlement was concurrent with one by the French who sold their settlement rights to the Spanish. The Spanish abandoned their claim but not before agreeing that their claim did not invalidate the British co-claim. Argentina claims to have inherited the Spanish claim, though Spain only authorised this over fifty years after they left the island, and also after they also pledged their claim to Uruguay.
Argentinas legal claim is totally spurious.
......at least in so far that a nation can lay claim to territory they lost to an invading force.
In 1928 Vernet asked the British Consulate in Buenos Aires for the right to settle an economic settlement on the islands. That right was granted.
The Provinces of the River Plate (now known as Argentina) retroactively made Vernet military governor and sent troops.
After a number of incidents including a mutiny and piracy, the US responded by sending a task force to protect their whalers in 1831 and the UK sent HMS Clio who removed the illegal Argentine garrison by force in 1833. The actual islanders were permitted to remain. Two left to return to Buenos Aires the rest stayed. Also Vernet hadn't paid his settlers so the UK agreed to pay them their missing wages.
From that moment the colonists, many of whom came from the UK to begin with, switched flags.
The thinnest veneer of a case Argentina has is completely swept aside when you consider that the 'Argentine' settlers, first sought permission from the British crown to be there, and when the Argentines cheated them of their pay remained on the islands under British rule. Not only is the sovereignty issue clear, but the territorial integrity issue is clear also. Argentina could only claim the islands through the islanders, it has no other connection to them.
To add to that Argentina made no protest on the status of the islands for over ninety years, during which time the islanders passed several generations.
Legally the issue is one sided. As there was no native population and a very clear record of human settlement there are few places in the world for which the legality of the current inhabitants can be so clearly established. There is certainly more right for self determination amongst Falklanders than anywhere else in the Americas, and for most of the rest of the world. Any exceptions? Possibly Bhutan.
Hulksmash wrote: British who come in on the side of the Palestinians annoy me almost as much as British who think they can handwave away firearms in the US. It's sheer blood ignorance of the situation and it's history.
What the feth?
Have you heard of British Palestine? Do you have any fething clue at all who was there before the country was given over to the Jews?
I mean, you want to talk about ignorance of history...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hulksmash wrote: Don't get me started on comments made regarding the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
You're approach to that issue is working under the impression that it's an American issue, of which the British have never been involved. So please, far from getting you started, I'd ask you to promise to never ever start on the issue. Ever.
Wow, talk about putting words in people's mouths. Never said it was an American issue. I was merely poking fun at someone from another country telling other nationals that they don't understand because they aren't from that country. Granted, as the next example was an American issue example I can see the confusion due to a failure of reading comprehesion.
I'm well aware of who "controlled" the region prior to the creation of Israel as a state. I'm well aware of the history of the state from it's inception to modern times. I don't know if you've been there or spent a significant amount of time (i.e. having them live with you for months at a time) with Israeli nationals or not and that could influence you as it has me. I'll happily admit to being biased. I'm jewish. I've spent time in the region and with people from the region here in the states. Seriously dude, take a step off your high horse, go back, and point out where I said it was an American issue. Or even where I said it's a British issue (which it isn't). Go ahead, I'll wait.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: Yeah... it was the British idea to create an Israeli state in the first place if I recall. The US was hesitant about it, but eventually backed the British.
Not quite. Britain was cool with a couple of Jews but didn't want large scale immigration or actual jewish dominated staet as they felt it would lead to uprisings in the region they controlled. The US, post WWII, wanted large scale immigration to be available to the area. The Brits stated this would cause additional issues in the region to their control but America (still being pretty anti-semetic as a nation) didn't want them here or in South America and so pushed for the relocation anyway. American ignored the rest of the recommendations (which might or might not have helped). Britain, while it had control of the Palestinian region, actively attempted to prevent immigration by Jews beyond the amount that America pushed for initially. It was the US which was one of the first (along with Russia) to recognize Israel as a nation once the British mandate expired.
**Edit** See, brought it back around to South America and Britain, on Topic!
chaos0xomega wrote: Argentinas claim to the Falkland Islands however is something I DO know a great deal about, and I have to tell you that if you had any understanding of the history then you would see that Argentina has had a legitimate claim to the islands for over a century now (and approaching two), at least in so far that a nation can lay claim to territory they lost to an invading force.
Legitimate? Curious choice of word.
Rough timeline:
Prior to 1764, they were 'discovered' by half a dozen people of varying nationalities, namely the Dutch, the Portugese, the British. and the French.
1764:- French colony of Port St Louis established. Population of about 75.
1765-66:- British establish the colony Port Egmont, whilst unaware of the French colony on the other side of the Falklands.
1767:- The Spanish use a prior agreement with the French to force the French to hand the colony over to them. Port St. Louis renamed Puerto Soledad.
1770:- The British and the Spanish both keep telling each other to leave. Eventually the Spanish mount a raid and capture Port Egmont expelling the British. Port Egmont renamed 'Cruzada' by the Spanish.
1771:- After a mass diplomatic uproar, the Spanish back down at threat of war and give 'Cruzada' back to the British. Status quo restored, Port Egmont reestablished.
1774:- British decide to leave for the time and up sails and leave, however they leave behind a plaque still claiming sovereignty of the islands.
1811:- Due to growing turbulence in South America, the Spanish withdraw their colony, leaving a plaque and claim of sovereignty like the British.
As can be seen, the British claim actually predates the existence of Argentina by roughly fifty years. They never surrendered that claim, and to quote a British Charge d’Affaire in 1829:
The withdrawal of His Majesty’s forces from these islands, in the year 1774, cannot be considered as invalidating His Majesty’s just rights. That measure took place in pursuance of a system of retrenchment, adopted at that time by His Britannic Majesty’s Government. But the marks and signals of possession and property were left upon the islands. When the Governor took his departure, the British flag remained flying, and all those formalities were observed which indicated the rights of ownership, as well as an intention to resume the occupation of that territory, at a more convenient season.
So in terms of right of discovery, several nations have a claim, none of which are Argentina. The right of the first colony goes to France, who have no interest in the place. And whilst Spain could theoretically claim right of conquest through the capture of Port Egmont, the Spanish Government later disavowed any such right and diplomatically agreed to the British ownership of Port Egmont. Whilst that does not mean they accepted Britain's claim to ownership, it negates any claim to right of conquest.
It should also be noted that the Spanish colony was withdrawn prior to the existence of Argentina by five years or so.
So, to continue:-
1820: An American citizen operating under a corsair license by the name of David Jewett put into the derelict remains of Puerto Soledad, where British explorer James Weddell was temporarily anchored. Jewett's license to pirate ships was derived from the 'United Provinces of the River Plate', a precursor to the establishment of modern Argentina. Jewett arbitrarily issued a claim on the Falklands on the behalf of the UPRP under his own initiative. The current understanding is that the UPRP weren't even aware of the claim issued on their behalf until a year later.
So the first possible Argentine claim derives from an American pirate captain making a declaration on their behalf. Not exactly the most auspicious, diplomatic, or legal way of doing things.
1823-1827:- Louis Vernet, a UPRP citizen makes several abortive attempts to colonise the islands.
1828:- UPRP grants Louis Vernet the right to colonise the Eastern Falklands. Vernet seeks British permission and assurances before sailing. A colony of around 40 people is establish in the ruins of Puerto Soledad.
So the first obviously official Argentine claim is an assumption that they can either make a fresh claim of their own, or (more likely) take over from where the Spanish left off. You'll note that they specified the Eastern Falklands. This would appear to imply that they intended to avoid any conflict with the British claim(sensibly so), and as such only presumed to lay claim to the Spanish side of the Falklands. Meaning that at best, they could currently hope to claim only half the Falklands now on that basis.
1831:- Vernet pirates four American fishing boats. The US dispatch USS Lexington. Lexington sails in, trashes the place, and captures the entire population. Half the population, hating the place, elects to leave with the American ship.
1832:- The UPRP attempts to set up a penal colony there, but fails on ground of mutiny.
Curiously enough, this would probably give America grounds for claiming right of conquest. Or at least, the claim would be as 'legitimate' as the current Argentine one.
1833:- The British, getting worried about all these sudden Argentine claims, dispatches an expedition, who politely show up, and ask that the British flag be raised, and the Argentine administration leave the kettle on to boil as they leave. The remaining Argentine colonists, tired sick of the place, intended to leave as well, but the British paid them to remain and join their own colony (more bodies and all that).
1834 to current day:- The Falklands are British.
EDIT:- The Spanish surrender their claim in 1863 to the Falkland Islands.
So, to note, the British claim of discovery is as good as anyone's. The British claim to sovereignty predates Argentine existence. The British had a colony prior to Argentina's existence.
Spain abandoned their colony before the existence of Argentina, so any claim that Argentina could have 'inherited' it are spurious at best.
To wit, the only Argentine colony to exist only ever claimed half the Falklands. and it was on dubious legal grounds to begin with (namely that they said it was theirs and landed a boat there). And that colony was more or less trashed by the USA.
So. To conclude:
Right of Discovery: Debatable, but British have a claim. Argentina does not exist.
Right of First Colony:- Goes to the French, narrowly beating the British. Argentina does not exist.
Right of Initial Sovereignty:- The French surrendered their claim to the Spanish, the Spanish have not exercised their claim in a very long claim, the British have maintained theirs to this day. Argentina did not exist .
Right of Conquest:- The British eviction of Vernet's administration, and the Falklands War in Britain's favour. The USA trashed Vernet's colony more or less to begin with, giving them a very tenuous connection. The Argentines have never conquered the Falklands.
This is of course, on top of:-
Right of Self Determination: The Islanders want to be British.
Right of Possession:- The Falklands are currently British.
The only thing the Argentine's could even attempt would be to claim that they inherited Spain's right of initial sovereignty, but that's impossible and ridiculous. If that were possible, South Africa could lay claim to Zimbabwe, Georgia to the Ukraine, and Canada to the US.
Not seeing where Spain surrendered her claims. I see them agreeing to British claims as well. Did I miss a line? Did the Spanish give up tehir claim officially or give it to someone else like the French did?
If the Spanish give their claim to someone who becomes Argentina then Argentina looks to have an equal claim - or more precisely a claim to right island where Stanley is. I bet the Argentinians would give tup their claim for half the mineral rights.
Again its all a moot point if the Brits just keep some redcoats on the island.
If the Spanish give their claim to someone who becomes Argentina then Argentina looks to have an equal claim - or more precisely a claim to right island where Stanley is.
The concept that Spain can give Argentina their claim over half a territory they ceased to have any control over almost two hundred and fifty years ago is daft. It's actually absurd. Like I said, on that basis we could tell South Africa they have a right to Zimbabwe, or other such ludicrous nonsense.
And even if they could inherit a right to ownership that way, when weighed up against the sheer weight of the English claim, theirs is easily dismissed.
If the Spanish give their claim to someone who becomes Argentina then Argentina looks to have an equal claim - or more precisely a claim to right island where Stanley is.
The concept that Spain can give Argentina their claim over half a territory they ceased to have any control over almost two hundred and fifty years ago is daft. It's actually absurd. Like I said, on that basis we could tell South Africa they have a right to Zimbabwe, or other such ludicrous nonsense.
And even if they could inherit a right to ownership that way, when weighed up against the sheer weight of the English claim, theirs is easily dismissed.
So er...
1. Spain never gave up their claim? If not and that claim goes to Argentina they have a much stronger case.
2. However, that - like all "claims" is easily dismissed as long as the UK has the fist to back it up.
Eggs wrote: I don't think the uk would carve out Argentinian territory, but if they were provoked into another conflict, I don't think the fighting would be limited to just the islands a second time around. I wouldn't be surprised if a few missiles were hurled at buenos aires to try and put the matter to bed permanently.
I think lobbing a few missiles into Buenos Aires indiscriminately would be the worst thing that the UK could do if invaded. However, it's highly unlikely that Argentina will do anything but sabre rattle.
Considering the state of their economy, I'm not even sure they can afford a sabre to rattle!
I read an interesting story about how the US had a plan to get an old carrier out of mothballs, crew it with navy veterans and send it to the Falklands if Britian's own carrier was sunk. during the 1982 conflict.
Say what you want about Reagan, but at least the guy was always willing to back the UK. I'm not sure about Obama. This UN thing has the guy rattled.
If the Spanish give their claim to someone who becomes Argentina then Argentina looks to have an equal claim - or more precisely a claim to right island where Stanley is.
The concept that Spain can give Argentina their claim over half a territory they ceased to have any control over almost two hundred and fifty years ago is daft. It's actually absurd. Like I said, on that basis we could tell South Africa they have a right to Zimbabwe, or other such ludicrous nonsense.
And even if they could inherit a right to ownership that way, when weighed up against the sheer weight of the English claim, theirs is easily dismissed.
So er...
1. Spain never gave up their claim? If not and that claim goes to Argentina they have a much stronger case.
Well, even if one is to presume such a method is valid, who says Argentina gets the claim? Why not any previously Spanish territory that is now an independent nation?
But, ignoring that, let's assume that such a method is a credible way of building a case for ownership. I, as the temporary imaginary Prime Minister, am now giving Canada the right to rule the US. And South Africa the right to the rest of Africa. How strong are these claims? And how many of those nations would enter into negotiations over them?
EDIT: After some more in depth research, I have discovered that Spain surrendered their claim in 1863. So that more or less settles that one.
If the Spanish give their claim to someone who becomes Argentina then Argentina looks to have an equal claim - or more precisely a claim to right island where Stanley is.
The concept that Spain can give Argentina their claim over half a territory they ceased to have any control over almost two hundred and fifty years ago is daft. It's actually absurd. Like I said, on that basis we could tell South Africa they have a right to Zimbabwe, or other such ludicrous nonsense.
And even if they could inherit a right to ownership that way, when weighed up against the sheer weight of the English claim, theirs is easily dismissed.
So er...
1. Spain never gave up their claim? If not and that claim goes to Argentina they have a much stronger case.
Well, even if one is to presume such a method is valid, who says Argentina gets the claim? Why not any previously Spanish territory that is now an independent nation?
But, ignoring that, let's assume that such a method is a credible way of building a case for ownership. I, as the temporary imaginary Prime Minister, am now giving Canada the right to rule the US. And South Africa the right to the rest of Africa. How strong are these claims? And how many of those nations would enter into negotiations over them?
EDIT: After some more in depth research, I have discovered that Spain surrendered their claim in 1863. So that more or less settles that one.
1. The line of argument is routinely made. Both siees in the Israeli/palestinian thing make. Al Qaeda makes it. Mexican nationalists make it about the Southestern US - like MGS just did
2. Its all an excuse. Might makes right. Seeing that the US now has a reason to take over, send in the Texas! 3. Good so Spain gave up their claims. What is Argentina actually arguing then?
I was curious whether this result maybe changes opinion on Argentina's claim on the islands? There is an argument that because the population was 'planted' by the Brits, then it isn't valid, but many of the residents are 8 or 9th generation islanders, so at what point do they become an indigenous population?
The current population are the indigenous islanders. There was no human settlement before them over most of the land. Those settlements that predate were restricted to small corners of the islands and will be dealt with below:
I think you should check the definition of indigenous. There is NO indigenous population to the Falklands.
Argentinas claim to the Falkland Islands however is something I DO know a great deal about, and I have to tell you that if you had any understanding of the history then you would see that Argentina has had a legitimate claim to the islands for over a century now (and approaching two),.....
No you dont know a 'great deal' about it based on what you wrote above.
The UK claimed the islands in 1690 when Captian John Strong RN set foot there, the first human to do so, and the British settled them in 1975, before Argentina existed. The British settlement was concurrent with one by the French who sold their settlement rights to the Spanish. The Spanish abandoned their claim but not before agreeing that their claim did not invalidate the British co-claim. Argentina claims to have inherited the Spanish claim, though Spain only authorised this over fifty years after they left the island, and also after they also pledged their claim to Uruguay.
Argentinas legal claim is totally spurious.
Umm... Argentina definitely existed in 1975... and the British definitely had settled the islands before then... not sure what you're trying to claim here. In any case, despite the British claim, the French were the first to actually establish a presence on the island, and given that the British abandoned the island voluntarily (more than once I might add) they would have also thus surrendered their claim (particularly when the abandonment occurs while someone else has a presence)... any nation can claim a strip of land, it doesn't actually make the claim legitimate (which can also be used to prove that the Argentine claim is false as well mind you). The French surrendered their territorial claim to Spain, making Spain the successor, this is further reinforced by the fact that the Spanish expelled the British presence on the island in the mid/late 1700s (so, given that, the Argentines actually have just as legitimate a claim over the islands as the British do considering the British expelled the Argies the same way that they themselves were expelled by the Spaniards). Eventually the Spaniards allowed the Brits to return, and it was agreed that both sides could maintain sovereignty claims. Britain later abandoned the colony voluntarily, though they left a flag behind asserting their control (so does the US own the moon??).
Following the withdrawal, the Spanish colonial gov't (the Viceroyalty of the River Plate) in that area governed the islands, and at some point brought down the British flag and removed the plaque, which can be seen as a hostile takeover and assertion of complete control over the islands by Spain (move your feet lose your seat). When the United Provinces declared their independence from Spain they claimed sovereignty over the Falklands (which was then under complete de facto and arguably de jure control of Spain), and they actually raised their flag over the island and administered it for a good 10+ years until the British showed up and expelled them with the threat of military force.
Spain actually never renounced their claim (that I have found, please provide sources otherwise), it was understood to have transferred to the newly established United Provinces by both Governments (there are actually letters supporting this floating around somewhere). The argument the British use is that Spains claim lapsed because Spain abandoned it... but by that same token, Britains claim would have lapsed as it had abandoned the islands (several times). The claim that Uruguay owns the islands is dubious, considering that its a document that nobody really knew about until about 2 months ago...
The fact of the matter is Britains claim is about as legitimate as the Argentine claim given the history, the only thing that swings it in Britains favor is the current population, but the question is do they actually matter? And if so, why do they matter and the actual indigenous populations of the various nations that Britain has administered at one point or another by force don't?
My thoughts, Britain evicted Argentina by force, Argentina has the right to make a claim, until the Argentines can evict Britain by force, the claim is pointless.
Palindrome wrote: To put the referendum in perspective a grand total of 3 people voted for the island to cease to be a British territory. There is literally nothing that the Argentinians can do about this. They have no realistic legal claim, the inhabitants have voted in a referendum to remain British, which will be respected by the internation community and the UN, and if they try to invade again they will be extremely lucky to even make landfall. Its high time to move on.
Well... if they invade again...
Would the UK invade Argentina? Or, a least carve out a territory like the old Hong Kong?
No they would just take Messi.
Now On topic.
1. The British have legal rights to the Falklands. Argentina just happens to be nearby. Ohh and the people who live there want to be british.
2. Argentina can't do anything about it. Seriously the Brit navy while small is in a much better state.
3. I know a Falklands War Vet. Most of my opinions about that conflict doubtless are affected by my friendship.
4. Who cares. No one is going to do anything.
I don't know much about the conflict, and have no one connected to it. However what little I know says that if the Falklands types wants to keep their crumpets and Union Jack let them, and woe betide Argentina if they decide to mix it up again.
1. The first recorded sighting of the islands is disputed but the oldest log entry belong to a Portugese vessel, however it did not stop. Boots on the ground state a claim.
2. The first recorded landing was by Captain John Strong in 1690, who claimed the islands for the British crown. Formally the Uk claim dates from then. While Cpt Strong did not start a settlement this is at the very least a tiebreaker with ther French.
3. The treaty that restored Port Egmont ensured the Spanish acceptance of a British co-claim. So any attempt to piggyback on a Spanish claim must also respect the British claim.
4. There was no indigenous human population prior to coolonisation, so the current inhabitants can claim to be indigenous.
5. The Spanish 'inheritance' was also gifted to Uruguay prior to Argentina.
Add all these together to your entyry and you get a more comprehensive history enough to convince anyone but an Argie or a closed minded Guardian reader.
I was curious whether this result maybe changes opinion on Argentina's claim on the islands? There is an argument that because the population was 'planted' by the Brits, then it isn't valid, but many of the residents are 8 or 9th generation islanders, so at what point do they become an indigenous population?
The current population are the indigenous islanders. There was no human settlement before them over most of the land. Those settlements that predate were restricted to small corners of the islands and will be dealt with below:
I think you should check the definition of indigenous. There is NO indigenous population to the Falklands.
Indigenous peoples are loosely and often politically defined, a safe definition is to equate indigenous populations to native populations, as it those with the earliest known historical rights over it. As the Falkanders were settlijng virgin territory without a native population they become the native population. By your definition there can be no indigenous people outside of East Africa, as ultimately everyone came from there. So if the Falklanders are 'immigrants' so are the Native Americans 'immigrants' to the Americas, they just came over a few tens of thousands of years earlier.
Umm... Argentina definitely existed in 1975... and the British definitely had settled the islands before then... not sure what you're trying to claim here.
In any case, despite the British claim, the French were the first to actually establish a presence on the island, and given that the British abandoned the island voluntarily (more than once I might add) they would have also thus surrendered their claim (particularly when the abandonment occurs while someone else has a presence)...
The British left behind their claim, but restored it. The French and Spanish left behind their claims and didnt restore them.
You would have a point if the British did not return to reinforce their claim, however they did.
The French surrendered their territorial claim to Spain, making Spain the successor, this is further reinforced by the fact that the Spanish expelled the British presence on the island in the mid/late 1700s (so, given that, the Argentines actually have just as legitimate a claim over the islands as the British do considering the British expelled the Argies the same way that they themselves were expelled by the Spaniards). Eventually the Spaniards allowed the Brits to return, and it was agreed that both sides could maintain sovereignty claims. Britain later abandoned the colony voluntarily, though they left a flag behind asserting their control (so does the US own the moon??).
The treaty with the Spanish agreed to a co claim, the Spanish claim doesn't invalidate the British one, however the Spanish claim was allowed to lapse for over 50 years.
Existing space exploration treaties ratified by the US and others forbid making land claims on the moon, besides the landing and flag planting was not accompanied by a claim at the time. So its just a flag planting, not as flag planting and claim.
Following the withdrawal, the Spanish colonial gov't (the Viceroyalty of the River Plate) in that area governed the islands, and at some point brought down the British flag and removed the plaque, which can be seen as a hostile takeover and assertion of complete control over the islands by Spain (move your feet lose your seat). When the United Provinces declared their independence from Spain they claimed sovereignty over the Falklands (which was then under complete de facto and arguably de jure control of Spain), and they actually raised their flag over the island and administered it for a good 10+ years until the British showed up and expelled them with the threat of military force.
You omitted that the settlement the Provinces placed there was with British permission, for economic use only, but it engaged in piracy, made claims over the UK's claims and militarised the islands outside of the treaty. The British shut down the portions of the operation that were in violation of the agreement. the colonists however were allowed to stay. Argentina only has a claim via the colonists, and they wanted to remain under UK rule (and then pay).
The argument the British use is that Spains claim lapsed because Spain abandoned it... but by that same token, Britains claim would have lapsed as it had abandoned the islands (several times). The claim that Uruguay owns the islands is dubious, considering that its a document that nobody really knew about until about 2 months ago...
The British settlement claims didnt lapse because they were restored in under fifty years. The French claim and Spanish claim wasnt.
The fact of the matter is Britains claim is about as legitimate as the Argentine claim given the history,
Rubbish. Argentina has no claim.
1. If date of claim is relevant, expired or not the UK has the oldest dating to 1690.
2. The Spanish claim was bought from the French, legally, but it also expired from lack of use for over 50 years. It was also taken by Argentina as an inheritence when not offered.
3. By treaty, any relation to the Spanish claim must include the British claim, as the (expired) right for Spain to mount a colony is in conjunction with the British.
4. The earliest Argentine claim was by treaty with the British for specific usage on a specific half of the islands. Argentina broke the agreement and was expelled from the colonies for breaking the treaty.
5. At the time Argentina had no rights to the Spanish claim and didn't for another forty years.
Argentina persistently lies about this, and their spurious version of events is taught in their history curriculum:
They prefer to claim they had a colony established with the blessing of Spain, and it was destroyed by the British. The like to omit the fact that the colony was established with British permission for certain activities, dont admit to what they did to break the treaty, that Spain had nothing to do with it, and above all that the islanders they sent are still established there.
When Galtieri invaded one of his priorities was to burn records, fortunately he didnt get them all. Some of the islanders can trace thier lineage back to Vernet's expeditions. Those islanders are the only validating connection to Argentina's claim, too bad for them that not only are they overwhelmingly in favour of the British claim but Argentina persecutes them by attempting to deny them any voice.
Also the UN resolutions calling for talks from 1965ff were adhered to. There were talks between the UK and Argentina, however the talks broke down in 1981 because the Uk wouldnt hand them over. Argentina invaded. There is nothing left to discuss even with the change in government.
My thoughts, Britain evicted Argentina by force, Argentina has the right to make a claim, until the Argentines can evict Britain by force, the claim is pointless.
The Germans used to own East Prussia. Otherwise known as Poland. So they thought they should march in......
So one other thing to mention, this isn't the 19th century. What was good for then is not for now, usually. Or should we all hand Poland 'back' to the Germans? Do they have a stronger claim now they have had a change of government?
Where does this 50 year lapse thing come from? Is that a made up.international law or something? By that logic the original 1690 "claim" lapsed as the British didnt establish a presence on the island until quite some time later 1765) meaning that the original claimant would be Spain (via France).
Spain quit the Falklands in 1810 or 1811, leaving the same symbols of.sovereignty which the British did previously (and going by the British Chatge d'Affaire in 1829), these symbols should be regarded as a sign of territorial possession). Argentina gained its independence about 6 years later via conflict. Though the Falklands arent explicitly or specifically stated to have been claimed from Spain at this time (to my understanding), they did make the claim at a later date. It should also be noted that Britain formally recognized the UPRP AFTER the UPRP had acknowledged/claimed the Falklands, which would mean, in turn, that the British recognized their claim.
The argument that the settlements on the Falklands were made via British permission are a retcon of.history, as the original "permission" asked for was that the British would not threaten the settlement, etc.and would maintain the status quo of the previous coexistence with the Spanish. The payments made were "protection money".
Manchu wrote: To clarify, he's not the bishop of Argentine people any more. The office changes the man. Where one may be able to speak a certain way in one office, one cannot or does not desire to do the same in another office. Your original comment was that the pope had weighed in on this issue. That's sloppy usage. An Argentine bishop who is now the pope weighed in on the issue.
I think you're overemphasizing the extent to which ascension to the Papacy changes people, and that you're splitting hairs with regard to the relevant terminology. The man that is now the Pope took a clear stance in support of an Argentine claim to the Falklands, and did so not long ago. While it is true he is no longer the Argentine bishop he is still Argentinian and a bishop, and I have a very difficult time believing that wearing a different set of vestments changes the man's position on the issue; even if it will not be an issue of importance to his papacy.
But, ignoring that, let's assume that such a method is a credible way of building a case for ownership. I, as the temporary imaginary Prime Minister, am now giving Canada the right to rule the US. And South Africa the right to the rest of Africa. How strong are these claims?
Exactly as strong the military of the claiming nation relative to any potential opponents.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I don't know much about the conflict, and have no one connected to it. However what little I know says that if the Falklands types wants to keep their crumpets and Union Jack let them, and woe betide Argentina if they decide to mix it up again.
Its really just a matter of the relative military capabilities of the UK and Argentina, or at least the willingness of the UK to defend its claim to the Falklands, as I have a hard time believing any other nation would commit forces to a possible conflict.
As I said up-thread, what the residents of the Falklands want is very nearly irrelevant.
Well actually, it's very relevant to the British public, which in turn makes it very relevant to the British political establishment, and they control our military. So really, what the Falklanders want is central to the issue. There's a better than 70% chance that we'd just give Argentina the bloody islands if the people there no longer wanted to be British.
It's one of things I am proudest of when it comes to being from the UK - we back our people, no matter the cost. It would be so easy to just write off The Falklands, Gibraltar or Northern Ireland (for example). They are messy situations, to say the least, and ones we could live without. But, as long as people in those places wish to be loyal British subjects we'll fight their corner. It's not about colonialism, or jingoism, or even chauvinism. It's about not hanging your own people out to dry.
chaos0xomega wrote: Where does this 50 year lapse thing come from? Is that a made up.international law or something? By that logic the original 1690 "claim" lapsed as the British didnt establish a presence on the island until quite some time later 1765) meaning that the original claimant would be Spain (via France).
Its more custom that law, but it works both ways.
If you don't consider claims to expire then the UK claim from the landing in 1690 predates all others. End of Argument.
If you do consider claims to expire then the Spanish claim not only expired, but was passed on to two nations one of whome made a claim preemptive of any right given to them by Spain. This makes the argument for the Spanish claim inheritence shaky at best.
Then if you do count in the Spanish claim the best it offers is joint sovereignty between two parties. Then you have to account for who that means, one part is defacto the UK, the treaty states as such. The other part is either Uruguay, Spain or the islanders as the 'manifestation' of the Spanish claim depending on how you parse out that half claim. Argentina can only make a claim via Vernets settlements which they retconned as an inherited claim. As those settlements are still on the islands you can ask them what they think. oh wait, we just did.
Argument over.
Albatross wrote: Well actually, it's very relevant to the British public, which in turn makes it very relevant to the British political establishment, and they control our military. So really, what the Falklanders want is central to the issue. There's a better than 70% chance that we'd just give Argentina the bloody islands if the people there no longer wanted to be British.
Agreed, is the islanders wanted union with Argentina we would have backed that.
However what really controls our military are short sighted civil servants and politicians. You cant talk sense into many of them and even those you can cant see beyond the current financial quarter. This puts us in a poor position.
It's one of things I am proudest of when it comes to being from the UK - we back our people, no matter the cost. It would be so easy to just write off The Falklands, Gibraltar or Northern Ireland (for example). They are messy situations, to say the least, and ones we could live without. But, as long as people in those places wish to be loyal British subjects we'll fight their corner. It's not about colonialism, or jingoism, or even chauvinism. It's about not hanging your own people out to dry.
Well said, but an increasing number of people are unpatriotic and also couldnt care less about anyone but themselves, or are bound into self hate dogma. In the long term the interest might fade.
It might well fade, yes. However, it seems that just when we're starting to forget the Falklands, the Argentines do or say something stupid about them and the public becomes aware of them all over again.
Albatross wrote: Well actually, it's very relevant to the British public, which in turn makes it very relevant to the British political establishment, and they control our military. So really, what the Falklanders want is central to the issue. There's a better than 70% chance that we'd just give Argentina the bloody islands if the people there no longer wanted to be British.
It is right now, but it may not always be. Further, simply because the public wants to support the wishes of the Falkland Islanders doesn't mean that doing is feasible from a policy perspective. I mean, it is true that public opinion is a huge a factor in how political decisions are made, but only in the short term and, despite what many believe, there are political decisions made according to long-term political goals.
In any case, its still fundamentally a question of the UK's ability to defend its claim to the Islands. Right now its fully capable of doing so, but if they can't what the Islanders want doesn't matter.
However what really controls our military are short sighted civil servants and politicians. You cant talk sense into many of them and even those you can cant see beyond the current financial quarter. This puts us in a poor position.
Public opinion being by its very nature a short sighted concern, I would argue it is the politicians* who would be most likely to move to support the Falklands.
*Civil servants tend to see thing in the long term, at least to the extent that they have any effective authority.
Albatross wrote: Well actually, it's very relevant to the British public, which in turn makes it very relevant to the British political establishment, and they control our military. So really, what the Falklanders want is central to the issue. There's a better than 70% chance that we'd just give Argentina the bloody islands if the people there no longer wanted to be British.
It is right now, but it may not always be. Further, simply because the public wants to support the wishes of the Falkland Islanders doesn't mean that doing is feasible from a policy perspective. I mean, it is true that public opinion is a huge a factor in how political decisions are made, but only in the short term and, despite what many believe, there are political decisions made according to long-term political goals.
All fair points, but the party that loses the Falklands doesn't get back into power for a generation, easy.
In any case, its still fundamentally a question of the UK's ability to defend its claim to the Islands. Right now its fully capable of doing so, but if they can't what the Islanders want doesn't matter.
Well, the point is that as long as they wish to remain British we will maintain the capability to defend them. Not to do so would be political suicide. It really is that important, I feel.
Well, the point is that as long as they wish to remain British we will maintain the capability to defend them. Not to do so would be political suicide. It really is that important, I feel.
Does the issue of defending your territories abroad often come up with regard to military spending?
dogma wrote: I have a very difficult time believing that wearing a different set of vestments changes the man's position on the issue
We're not talking about anything so superficial as changing clothes. In my own life, in small ways, I know how much difference is made by holding or not holding certain roles. This is a much more significant transition, even discounting the difference between personal and official views.
Well, the point is that as long as they wish to remain British we will maintain the capability to defend them. Not to do so would be political suicide. It really is that important, I feel.
Does the issue of defending your territories abroad often come up with regard to military spending?
Yes. The entire Royal Navy is built around it. It's part of why our nuclear deterrent is mobile. They are away to drop significant shed loads of cash updating this deterrent.
Anywhere, any time, one of the subs can surface and launch a battery of cruise missiles or nukes. Hell, they probably don't even need to surface.
Historically, we had a lot of territories abroad...
Yes. The entire Royal Navy is built around it. It's part of why our nuclear deterrent is mobile. They are away to drop significant shed loads of cash updating this deterrent.
Anywhere, any time, one of the subs can surface and launch a battery of cruise missiles or nukes. Hell, they probably don't even need to surface.
Historically, we had a lot of territories abroad...
Fair enough, I'll freely admit to being ignorant of British domestic politics.
Eggs wrote: Yes. The entire Royal Navy is built around it. It's part of why our nuclear deterrent is mobile. They are away to drop significant shed loads of cash updating this deterrent.
Anywhere, any time, one of the subs can surface and launch a battery of cruise missiles or nukes. Hell, they probably don't even need to surface.
Historically, we had a lot of territories abroad...
While I believe your rationale is dead on, how is popular British opinion on it though?
In America, it seems our defense budget is the #1 target.
I think British public opinion is split at the moment about military spending and the role of the armed forces.
In general there is a lot of support for the Army who are seen as doing an unpleasant job well in Afghanistan. There is also historical respect for the RN and RAF.
The nuclear deterrent is a point of controversy as it will cost a huge amount to update when the national budget is under pressure. Arguably there are more important problems to spend the money on, such as upgrading the national electricity generation system.
There is also the consideration that the nuclear bases are in Scotland, which votes on an independence referendum soon.
Overall there is a view that the armed forces need to be reconfigured for 21st century wars. It seems unlikely the country will need to defend itself against soviet Russian attack. All the near neighbours are allies. The most likely wars are the kind of post-imperial operations such as the Falklands, the Sierra Leone involvement and brushfire wars in places like Afghanistan.
That kind of operation does not require heavy tanks, air superiority fighters and anti-submarine destroyers.
I dare say Ketara, whose degree is in war studies or something similar, should be able to give a more informed opinion on the topic.
Public opinion is indeed split. While the defence budget is being hammered, it gets herder to justify trident, which is currently about 5.5% of defence spending (just to maintain). The cost of a replacement will no doubt be huge. The issue is that trident is not primarily a uk defence system, its a NATO defence system for the whole of Europe. It just happens that the uk pay for it, and reserve the right to use it for domestic circumstances if required.
It was only put together in case the us neglected to get involved in a Europe-ussr spat. The chances of that happening now are remote, but a Chinese threat is on the horizon.
It was piggybacked on the us nuclear submarine system, with the uk paying some of the missile development costs, and building our own warheads.
Majority feeling in Scotland now seems to be that the system is no longer justified, and should be scrapped. Personally, I'm not so sure. I think it should only be scrapped as part of a worldwide disarmament, and there is the matter of all those unaccounted-for Russian nukes...
Automatically Appended Next Post: But I digress. To come back to the topic in hand, while the uk does have the resource to bombard anywhere in the world, we are lacking in a fast-jet aircraft carrier at the moment, so couldn't really launch much of an air based strike anywhere far away. It wouldn't take much to destroy the jets on the Falklands, and then we'd be in a pickle.
It wouldnt take much to destroy those jets for any other nation but Argentina... They seriously have no real capability to do it themselves unless they send over saboteurs...
If you want to attack the UK defending squadron in the Falklands you need long range stealth bombers, or cruise missiles, or a commando force possibly landed by submarine, or an aircraft carrier task force. You might do it with fighter-bombers accompanied by tanker aircraft, or paratroops, but that is exactly the kind of force it is set up to defend against.
The British defenses around the Falklands are set up to counter pretty much everything you just listed. Honestly the only realistic Argentine option is stealthy insertion of commandos/saboteurs. Either by doing a night time landing via small fastboats in a remote location or just flying in as tourists via commercial airline or whatever (in which case we have the issue of how they are expected to get weapons and equipment). Id imagine though that fighters are probably kept under heavy guard and a small crack unit of poorly trained argentine commandos wont have much of a chance anyway.
Even if they do manage to sabotage anything, what would Argentina gain? The immediate distrust of pretty much every UN nation? The immediate distrust of its own citizens? A war it cannot afford, not only because it is lacking militarily but because it's a growing country?
The Argentine government might succeed in taking the Falklands through sabotage, but if they do, they'll be about as adrift in the developed/developing world as the Falklands themselves.
I hope don't think that even the Argentine Government would be so stupid as to imagine the benefits of such actions outweigh the detriments.
There is a garrison of 1000 Royal Marines on the Falklands, if memory serves. Plus, they have air support. This pretty much means that any small commando-type raid would last roughly half an hour before being completely annihilated. You'd need a bigger force to take the Falklands, which would of course be difficult to land without being noticed.
Argentina will talk tough, but ultimately this will not escalate to an actual shooting war. Although Britain may currently lack carriers, they now have a substantially improved garrison and I'm sure that the Royal Navy has spent considerable time and resources on addressing the problem of anti-shipping missiles.
Never underestimate the potential for.sheer stupidity on the part of a nation in the midst of deep social, political, and economic upheaval. I doubt anything will come of it anytime soon, but there is always the potential for it.
chaos0xomega wrote: Never underestimate the potential for.sheer stupidity on the part of a nation in the midst of deep social, political, and economic upheaval. I doubt anything will come of it anytime soon, but there is always the potential for it.
Albatross wrote: Well actually, it's very relevant to the British public, which in turn makes it very relevant to the British political establishment, and they control our military. So really, what the Falklanders want is central to the issue. There's a better than 70% chance that we'd just give Argentina the bloody islands if the people there no longer wanted to be British.
It's one of things I am proudest of when it comes to being from the UK - we back our people, no matter the cost. It would be so easy to just write off The Falklands, Gibraltar or Northern Ireland (for example). They are messy situations, to say the least, and ones we could live without. But, as long as people in those places wish to be loyal British subjects we'll fight their corner. It's not about colonialism, or jingoism, or even chauvinism. It's about not hanging your own people out to dry.
Argentina shouldn't have invaded the first time.
Now it's a point of pride that it's ours.
Otherwise it's was entirely conceivable that we might have sold it by now...
Well, the point is that as long as they wish to remain British we will maintain the capability to defend them. Not to do so would be political suicide. It really is that important, I feel.
Does the issue of defending your territories abroad often come up with regard to military spending?
The issue of defending territories is not the main rationale behind British military spending. Our military priorities are such however, that our capabilities are modelled in the same way as if that was the case.
To extrapolate, the goal of our forces is primarily (i) to defend the British homeland by making sure that no enemy fleet would be able to land an invading army, and (ii) to make sure that Britain is capable of transporting and landing a fast, efficient, and well trained army anywhere on the globe. Or in other words, force projection. This has been the case for roughly the last hundred years or so.
This can be seen in the current makeup of the British fleet. Whilst our last carrier is due to be decomissioned in 2014 (HMS Illustrious), our three other capital ships (loosely speaking) are the HMS Ocean, HMS Albion, and HMS Bulwark and are all designed for amphibious assaults. Combined, these three ships can carry the better part of two thousand soldiers, just over a hundred trucks, seventy odd tanks and twenty five helicopters.
Albion Class Landing Ship Dock
Whilst this might not sound like a huge amount, the Royal Fleet Auxiliary is designed to operate as a carrying fleet for a large part, with the capacity to move around another 37 helicopters, 780 armoured vehicles, 360 trucks, seventy tanks and two thousand more men. This is all of course, on top of the Merchant Navy which can be requisitioned at need to carry troops. Not to mention the ships will be carrying enough ammunition and supplies to fight an extensive action.
Bay Class Landing Ship
With that kind of carrying capacity, combined with the accompanying submarines, frigates and destroyers, we currently have the ability to launch effective and sustainable hostile action anywhere in the world that adjoins the sea. Conveniently enough, maintaining the capability to do this also maintains our ability to defend farflung places like the Falklands, although that is more of an offshoot of our naval strategy than a driving part of it.
You get a lot of people moaning that our fleet is nothing compared to the 'good old days', and they're right. But then again, that fails to take into account that the good old days included a desire to have as many ships as any two other powers in the world combined (impractical today looking at the US), and a much cheaper cost per ship than we have now (a destroyer costs about ten times now as much as one used to, taking currency change into effect). The fact remains that bar getting into a war with the US, if Britain wants to invade somewhere, we still have the capability to do so with relative impunity.
The only current issue is the lack of capacity for aerial defence. Whilst the new Type 45's are meant to be the be all and end all of local aerial defence, they're somewhat untested, and have no way of providing cover to anything past a certain distance overland. The HMS Ocean can support VTOL aircraft, but we unfortunately just sold off all our Harriers to the US.
I daresay we could retake the Falklands airfield without much issue though. Park a couple of type 45's outside it (the joy of small islands), and just wait for the troop carriers to get there. We might lose a ship or two, but even if the Argie's retook the entire Falklands and stationed troops and artillery there, we still have the capacity to take it back.
The UK is mothballing Challenger II's a portion of those should be mothballed on this islands. You cant get Challengers ashore in an opposed operation, so they need to be there now.
The light forces Argentina could muster would have limited capability against them. Argentina wont be able to airlift over armour, and Challengers are near immune to most man portable AT weapons so they would have to resort entirely to airpower. Have enough missiles to stop that and you give President Fernandez a serious problem.
I dont think they would need many Challengers there, a company might be enough.
The problem is the Falklands is a horrible place for Tanks, its all soft peaty soil and jagged rocks. The Scorpion and Scimitar light tanks used in the war had trouble getting about, and there designed to have very low ground pressure.
A Challenger 2 with all the extra gubbinz weighs up to 80tons, they’d all just end up getting stuck in peat bogs. Argentina only has light tanks anyway and I dont think they have any way of landing them other than unloading at a port.
Though it would be fun to see Challengers there just to Troll Argentina
The issue of defending territories is not the main rationale behind British military spending. Our military priorities are such however, that our capabilities are modelled in the same way as if that was the case.
To extrapolate, the goal of our forces is primarily (i) to defend the British homeland by making sure that no enemy fleet would be able to land an invading army, and (ii) to make sure that Britain is capable of transporting and landing a fast, efficient, and well trained army anywhere on the globe. Or in other words, force projection. This has been the case for roughly the last hundred years or so.
First, thanks for the detailed response.
Second, it sound like you're discussing the goals of the British military, but I was referring to the British political situation. Would you say that your response reflects the beliefs of the average British voter?
Frazzled wrote: Just put a nuke on the island. Make it public policy that if Argentina attacks the UK with anything...woosh.
I think that might be viewed as something of an over-reaction by.. well... the rest of the world.
Might be one or two security issues too perhaps yes ?
1. No reaction to stop behavior than over reaction. Its the Chicago way. 2. security issues: thats what the challengers and sharks with frigging laser beams are for.
Alternatively just say if Argentina attacks the nuke bombers fly. Call it the Frazzled FPOR policy.*
"Argentina's Kirchner raises Falklands with Pope Francis
Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner says she has asked for the Pope's intervention in the Falklands dispute between her country and the UK."
cpt_fishcakes wrote: "Argentina's Kirchner raises Falklands with Pope Francis
Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner says she has asked for the Pope's intervention in the Falklands dispute between her country and the UK."
Idiot bitch. 'Las Malvinas' is the only issue that the two agree on, yet now he is Pope he has to take a more neutral position. This puts the Vatican in a tight spot, at least its not a kid this time.
reds8n wrote: Once again I am relieved shocked and amazed that your career in the diplomatic corp failed to take off !
Peace through superior atoms!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eggs wrote: Catholicism is declining in the uk anyway.
Don't think the Vatican is really in any position at the moment to be lecturing anyone about anything...
Oh they can lecture about agreat many things. They don't typically lecture about territorial disputes however, other than maybe a nice monograph on beating swords into plowshares.
Its the same old smoke screen. The UN clearly states any negotiations on the islands must be in the best interests of the islanders. As Argentina refuses to recognize let alone talk to islanders, no form of negotiation can ever take place. That how Argentina likes it, they know the UN charter invalidates there position. They are desperate to keep hold of the propaganda ace for domestic politics.
cpt_fishcakes wrote: Its the same old smoke screen. The UN clearly states any negotiations on the islands must be in the best interests of the islanders. As Argentina refuses to recognize let alone talk to islanders, no form of negotiation can ever take place. That how Argentina likes it, they know the UN charter invalidates there position. They are desperate to keep hold of the propaganda ace for domestic politics.
Actually that is not the case.
The UN resolution from 1965 called for talks with the islanders concerns to be considered. The Uk complied with the resolution.
The 1983 UN resolution and those since quietly removed this stipulation, the Foreign Office, useless morons that they are, were caught napping and let the amended wording pass.
Well seeing as President Fernandez has trainwrecked her own economy, scarred away foreign investment by nationalising foreign owned energy industries from within her borders; and vows to seize the Falklands in 20 years from a population that doesnt want her or her country yet claims to want to do so peacefully.
chaos0xomega wrote:Personally, I don't see why y'all can't just split the Falklands, East Falkland to the UK, West Falkland to Argentina. Thats basically the way the original split between Spain/UK was way back when (and was also the split at the time the UPRP settled the islands in the early 19th century), as I understand it, and from what I understand West Falkland Island is barely inhabited, if at all, correct?
Argentina doesn't want to share, they even edited their constitutional to demand total sovereignty over the Falklands. If they had half the islands they would be ten miles away rather than 300 and would have right to place troops there. War would be a certainty.
Also the people on both West and East Falklands dont want them.
Also they invaded before and have vowed to have the islands within 20 years, so they can sit and sulk in Buenos Aires.
There is nothing to discuss, and nothing that ought to be shared. It might should like common sense to give a wolf your hand, but it wont stop the wolf, only now you only have one hand.
The issue of defending territories is not the main rationale behind British military spending. Our military priorities are such however, that our capabilities are modelled in the same way as if that was the case.
To extrapolate, the goal of our forces is primarily (i) to defend the British homeland by making sure that no enemy fleet would be able to land an invading army, and (ii) to make sure that Britain is capable of transporting and landing a fast, efficient, and well trained army anywhere on the globe. Or in other words, force projection. This has been the case for roughly the last hundred years or so.
First, thanks for the detailed response.
Second, it sound like you're discussing the goals of the British military, but I was referring to the British political situation. Would you say that your response reflects the beliefs of the average British voter?
The average British voter would take to the streets with a pitchfork if the Falklands were invaded and our government either did nothing, or could not take them back. Nationalism is very big, and getting bigger, at the minute.
Orlanth wrote: Well seeing as President Fernandez has trainwrecked her own economy, scarred away foreign investment by nationalising foreign owned energy industries from within her borders; and vows to seize the Falklands in 20 years from a population that doesnt want her or her country yet claims to want to do so peacefully.
I am spot on with my assessment.
That sounds more like nationalist posturing than objective commentary.
The 1983 UN resolution and those since quietly removed this stipulation, the Foreign Office, useless morons that they are, were caught napping and let the amended wording pass.
It was a GA resolution, there was nothing your foreign office could do.
chaos0xomega wrote:Personally, I don't see why y'all can't just split the Falklands, East Falkland to the UK, West Falkland to Argentina. Thats basically the way the original split between Spain/UK was way back when (and was also the split at the time the UPRP settled the islands in the early 19th century), as I understand it, and from what I understand West Falkland Island is barely inhabited, if at all, correct?
Argentina doesn't want to share, they even edited their constitutional to demand total sovereignty over the Falklands. If they had half the islands they would be ten miles away rather than 300 and would have right to place troops there. War would be a certainty.
Also the people on both West and East Falklands dont want them.
Also they invaded before and have vowed to have the islands within 20 years, so they can sit and sulk in Buenos Aires.
There is nothing to discuss, and nothing that ought to be shared. It might should like common sense to give a wolf your hand, but it wont stop the wolf, only now you only have one hand.
Yea, well if they did share the islands and argentina did attack the brits, the British counterattack to seize East Falkland would settle the matter once and for all, wouldnt it? To.the victor goes the spoils and we know that Britain of all countries takes no qualms with redrawing maps after wars.
Orlanth wrote: Well seeing as President Fernandez has trainwrecked her own economy, scarred away foreign investment by nationalising foreign owned energy industries from within her borders; and vows to seize the Falklands in 20 years from a population that doesnt want her or her country yet claims to want to do so peacefully.
I am spot on with my assessment.
That sounds more like nationalist posturing than objective commentary.
Not very fair-minded of you.
I need not be British to come to that conclusion on President Fernandez.
The 1983 UN resolution and those since quietly removed this stipulation, the Foreign Office, useless morons that they are, were caught napping and let the amended wording pass.
It was a GA resolution, there was nothing your foreign office could do.
Yes, the specific wording of a given resolution is up for negotiation, but who in the GA were you going to sway from the 87 voting in favor or the 54 abstentions?
I need not be British to come to that conclusion on President Fernandez.
No, but I suspect the fact that you are British played a key role in your apparent decision to refer to Kirchner as an idiot bitch.
It made her more relevant for commentary, it did not sway opinion. I have similar comments about Robert Mugabe, though I would use the word bitch and he has nothing to do with the Falklands.
Yes, the specific wording of a given resolution is up for negotiation, but who in the GA were you going to sway from the 87 voting in favor or the 54 abstentions?
First you amend the bill, then you have the vote. This would have been reasonable to achieve as previous UN resolutions on the topic accounted for the islanders welfare in the wording of the resolution.
First you amend the bill, then you have the vote. This would have been reasonable to achieve as previous UN resolutions on the topic accounted for the islanders welfare in the wording of the resolution.
There is no formal amendment process in the GA, at least aside from amendments to their procedural rules. Representatives of nations sponsor resolutions, and they are put to vote; there are no changes made in the course of debate. The best your Foreign Office could have done is attempt to sway assenting or abstaining parties to their side, which is probably what they did. The problem is that the Falklands Issue had been framed, within the GA, as one of decolonization since the 60's*; so there was little progress to be made.
*There's also the issue that, for the majority of your allies, this "issue" is a curiosity at best.
Second, it sound like you're discussing the goals of the British military, but I was referring to the British political situation. Would you say that your response reflects the beliefs of the average British voter?
The British have a long history of pride in the capabilities of their forces, and especially the Royal Navy. Whilst this figures less prominently in their cultural makeup today then it did say, fifty years ago, one only has to scrape beneath the surface to find it again. For all their left wing liberal affectations, the British as a people still tend to be rather imperial in their outlook on the world. That is to say, they still consider themselves as one of the world's foremost powers, and believe they should have the right to meddle around the globe as they see fit, provided they can square and justify it with themselves.
A play on the British Dreadnought race with Germany
Ultimately, if you take away Britain's relative military technological superiority, and the ability to best any third world, and a good chunk of the second world nations on their own home turf, then Britain becomes incapable of 'going it alone'. It loses what independence it currently retains from the EU and the US, loses its ability to interfere directly on a global scale to protect its own interests, and becomes a tiny island of no real global importance or significance.
The British have always been touchy about the minute size of their island, leading to much cartographic propaganda
The average voter does not wish such a thing. As far as s/he is concerned, Britain should be able to defend her interests, should take pride in her forces, and should be independent enough to be able to give a middle finger to any other power or nation in the world. A visible failure to do these things can do a large amount of political damage to any ruling party or coalition.
These goals require global power projection capacity. As such, the average politician will usually maintain that capacity, so as to not be badly damaged in the public eye. They may try and squeeze funding out of the forces where the public cannot see it, they may subordinate their own foreign policy to a more powerful nations to win brownie points, and many other such things. But they must be ever mindful of the need, in public at least, of being able to defend Britain's interests with force, should push come to shove.
The Falklands, fortunately, fall within that remit of 'interests' these days. Hence why the British built a vastly overpriced airfield there, and currently station a garrison of a thousand men and women at a staggering cost to their nation.
Mount Pleasant airfield
So yes. The goals of the Royal Navy and their resulting budget allocation do rather strongly reflect the priorities of the British domestic voter, if within a military context.
Nice quote, LuciusAR! 
oh and two or three rifle companies worth of police
