Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Orlanth wrote:

Henners91 wrote:

One also has to ask if the Falklands are worth the money.

Well we can always save money by removing your human rights, take away your home and your job and tell you to feth off elsewhere.

You wouldnt like that wouldnt you.
Not happening to the islanders either.

Human rights are not just for terrorists and gangsters with expensive lawyers, sometimes people who deserve them get them too.

Like I said above, I'm fully in favour of defending them as is, as a matter of moral necessity.

I can just envisage a day coming where the well-being of four-thousand people will become irrelevant next to broader strategic concerns.

We already did it over Diego Garcia. Not a single **** was given.

purplefood wrote:

Palindrome wrote:This will all fizzle out. The Argentinians don't have a strong claim, they really don't want a repeat of the first falklands (although the UK will have severe difficulties mounting a counter invasion) and most importantly the islanders want to stay British.

True, though whether that would motivate anyone to stop them is another question.
The Argentinians would have more trouble invading in the first place...

No it wont fizzle out.

Argentinas claim is not based on any logic but race politics.
Hispanic nations in the Americas will support Argentina, Anglic nations will not. Actual legality has nothing to do with it, only the Canadian press is bothering to look at the actual facts. "Returnas los Malvinas" stamp, stamp, is a cheap way to gain votes in any Latin American country. Mainly because the UK doesnt do much to defend its position and because painting the UK as the colonial bogeyman diverts attention away from themselves..

The big problem is Obama, he hates the UK, and would like some Hispanic vote and that combo isn't nice. He will turn on us without warning if he could see profit in it.

Once the oil is being mined there will be enough cash to ensure that the Falklands get properly defended, until that time we have to hope that the politicians in Westminster have the balls. Cameron does, but if Milliband gets in there may be problems.

Orlanth wrote:

Henners91 wrote:

One also has to ask if the Falklands are worth the money.

Well we can always save money by removing your human rights, take away your home and your job and tell you to feth off elsewhere.

Indeed, as always Henners has the ability to make me rage with his poorly thought out posts.

I feel strongly about it not for any monetary reason.

Those people, some of which are 9th generation and whose family have lived there for 200 YEARS should not and can not be moved. Its an absolute disgrace to even suggest it.

Can you imagine the BNP saying that black people should be deported unless they were 9th generation or above? And where would you send them? English speaking Black people who have never been anywhere other than England?! It is the exact same thing.

To suggest the islanders just give up and "become" Argentinian or move is an absolute joke, and that middle class British twits like Henners can happily put it down to a simple economical argument makes my blood boil, and any man who values human decency and justice should feel the same. I honestly think that the Islanders have the right to choose their own destiny, and I don't believe that any impartial observer would side with the Argies over this matter.

Well, except Sean Penn, but I would guess he is ignorant of such things and supports the IRA, so he is hardly impartial is he?

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:

Argentina has politicised the London Olympics over its Falkland Islands' sovereignty claim by making a television advert of one of its athletes training there, on what it calls "Argentine soil".
President Cristina Fernandez Kirchner's government released the television advert linking the Games to its demand to rule the South Atlantic islands.

The 90-second commercial shows Olympic hopeful Fernando Zylberberg training in the Falklands.



The advert was filmed with a handheld camera and shows the 35-year-old Argentine hockey player training outside a typical pub, the Globe Tavern.

The footage also shows Zylberberg running past the offices of the local newspaper, the Penguin News, and an iconic red British telephone box.

Reportedly created by the US-based Young & Rubicam advertising agency, it was shot early in the morning and no islanders can be seen in the footage.

The glossy advert, filmed beneath rolling grey clouds, also uses rousing music for dramatic effect.

It finishes with the slogan, "To compete on English soil, we are training on Argentine soil".



It adds that it is a "tribute to the fallen and ex-combatants" of the 1982 Falklands War.

The advert was screened on several Argentine TV stations on Wednesday night to coincide with the the 30th anniversary of the torpedo attack on the cruiser General Belgrano by a British nuclear-powered submarine during the conflict.

"This is going to generate international repercussions," one official said.

Senator Anibal Fernandez tweeted: "Very good advert about the Malvinas and the Olympics", using the Argentine name for the archipelago.

The Argentine government did not say how the commercial was filmed or whether they had permission to shoot in the Falklands.

But the stunt may backfire as many Argentinians were highly critical of the advert.

One wrote on the website of newspaper La Nacion: "This advert seems to me to show a lack of respect for the soldiers who died in the Malvinas and what our claims to sovereignty mean. Will winning medals at the Olympics make us feel closer to the islands?



"It is a disgrace and a game aimed at submerging people in greater ignorance."

Another wrote: "A tribute to who? People on both sides died in this absurd war."

And another joked: "At least on the islands they won't steal his trainers and tracksuit at gunpoint!"

Zylberberg is a member of the men's hockey team and will be competing in his third Olympics after previously taking part in Sydney in 2000 and Athens in 2004.

Link here to the Video on Sky news.

Thoughts?

Simple solution. When he shows up at Heathrow, lose his passport and put him in a holding cell until after the Olympics as a precaution.
We have some DEA agents you coould contact on how to "forget" people for a few days.

Orlanth wrote:

purplefood wrote:

Palindrome wrote:This will all fizzle out. The Argentinians don't have a strong claim, they really don't want a repeat of the first falklands (although the UK will have severe difficulties mounting a counter invasion) and most importantly the islanders want to stay British.

True, though whether that would motivate anyone to stop them is another question.
The Argentinians would have more trouble invading in the first place...

No it wont fizzle out.

Argentinas claim is not based on any logic but race politics.
Hispanic nations in the Americas will support Argentina, Anglic nations will not. Actual legality has nothing to do with it, only the Canadian press is bothering to look at the actual facts. "Returnas los Malvinas" stamp, stamp, is a cheap way to gain votes in any Latin American country. Mainly because the UK doesnt do much to defend its position and because painting the UK as the colonial bogeyman diverts attention away from themselves..

The big problem is Obama, he hates the UK, and would like some Hispanic vote and that combo isn't nice. He will turn on us without warning if he could see profit in it.

Once the oil is being mined there will be enough cash to ensure that the Falklands get properly defended, until that time we have to hope that the politicians in Westminster have the balls. Cameron does, but if Milliband gets in there may be problems.

I think that legality probably rests with the Argentines if I am honest.

If you want a good read on the subject, try Metford, 'Falklands or Malvinas? The Background to the Dispute'... though I dunno if you can get a .pdf around anywhere. Alternatively, any faithful chronology kind of makes the case pretty clear.

The French settled East Falkland, the Spanish purchased it from them in order to avoid a war between the two Bourbon monarchies. Britain had simultaneously colonised West Falkland. The Spanish asked us to get off (they were still going on about that Treaty of Tordesillas nonsense) and we wouldn't vacate; it nearly went to war. The Spanish backed down and ceded our sovereignty over Port Egmont, the settlement we'd established, but not the Falkland Islands as a whole. The British left in the 1770s (my dates are sketchy, it was a while ago I wrote an essay on this) and only left behind a plaque asserting sovereignty, whereas the Spanish continued to administer their holdings. Argentina asserted sovereignty over the islands in 1814; claiming that, as the islands had been administered from Buenos Aires, Argentina possessed a claim as a successor state. Luis Vernet administered a settlement. The British returned in 1833, over fifty years (apparently it is a general consensus that a state loses rights to a territory if it fails to administer them for 50+ years), and took the colony. Argie settlers did flee but apparently returned over time.

Legal claims in international law apparently derive from (source: Bluth, 'The British Resort to Force in the Falklands/Malvinas Conflict'):
(1)The occupation of terra nullius (previously unsettled land)
(2)Accrestion, whereby the geography of an area is altered by the forces of nature
(3)Cession, whereby title is transferred from one state to another by treaty
(4)Prescription, whereby territory formerly under the control of another state is possessed and controlled by a state with the acquiescence of the other state that previously had title to it

The French settled the islands first, which gave them sovereignty under point #1. They then sold their claim to the Spanish, who gained their claim under point #4. The Argies succeeded in their claim.

The one complicating factor that makes the discussion less clear-cut, however, is that the Spanish actually supported the British in the contest, and didn't give up their claim to the Falklands until quite a way after the dispute. Argentina was also silent for a period in the 19th century; even opening congress by saying that there were no complaints with Britain.

But, imo, we have a very weak legal claim. Our moral force to any argument is that the descendants of many of the Argentine settlers are still present on the islands and wish to remain British. Governments have an obligation to defend all those who wish to be under its sovereignty; it's the basis of the social contract.

I think the best outcome would be if the islands would be assimilated into Argentina peaceably and culturally, and there was a real chance of this happening in the 1970s; Argentina provided healthcare, education (and Spanish classes), transport infrastructure and all kinds of investments... as well as rights for Falklanders to travel in Argentina and, if they chose to live there, be exempted from conscription. But that damned Junta got impatient with the islanders reluctance to acquiesce in sovereignty negotiations and had to launch that invasion. Now it's a point of pride for all parties involved and I can't see a peaceable solution for a long time. The islanders are a thorn in Britain's side, but morals dictate that we defend them... just like those bloomin' Northern Irelanders.

...Nothing like writing an undergraduate essay to give one a smug sense of knowledge and authority on any subject


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:

Indeed, as always Henners has the ability to make me rage with his poorly thought out posts.

I feel strongly about it not for any monetary reason.

Those people, some of which are 9th generation and whose family have lived there for 200 YEARS should not and can not be moved. Its an absolute disgrace to even suggest it.

Can you imagine the BNP saying that black people should be deported unless they were 9th generation or above? And where would you send them? English speaking Black people who have never been anywhere other than England?! It is the exact same thing.

To suggest the islanders just give up and "become" Argentinian or move is an absolute joke, and that middle class British twits like Henners can happily put it down to a simple economical argument makes my blood boil, and any man who values human decency and justice should feel the same. I honestly think that the Islanders have the right to choose their own destiny, and I don't believe that any impartial observer would side with the Argies over this matter.

Well, except Sean Penn, but I would guess he is ignorant of such things and supports the IRA, so he is hardly impartial is he?

Care to address my point on Diego Garcia? Or is it only heartbreaking when the settlers aren't white descendants of Englishmen?

I honestly think the only reason we are so impassioned about this issue is because British servicemen died.

Nevertheless, I once again stress that I am for the islands' retention for the time-being... and I do urge you to read the first part of this post as I hope you will find it well-reasoned... I am not deliberately trying to make anyone 'rage' and, for once, I am on the same side as the Sun & Daily Mail readers, so to speak.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I must also ask if it really would be a terrible tragedy were the islanders to be gradually assimilated, culturally, over a century?

Let's imagine the war never happened... that process I described in the '70s was ongoing.

Falkland Islanders are all learning Spanish in schools as a second language, every day they use Argentine products... they use Argentine energy (before the agreements with Argentina, they were still using peat). They have subsidised air travel to Argentina... Argentines are travelling to the islands too.

Does nobody think that after a century or so in such an environment, the islanders might not have opened up to concepts such as, union with Argentina as a self-governing territory? It's not like English couldn't have been retained as their first-languages. Cultural assimilation is hardly unprecedented.

Were this to happen, the islanders would not have been repressed or forced into anything, the British would have been rid of an irritating cancour and international embarrassment (Argentina did a pretty good job of getting the Falklands onto the UN agenda) and we might actually have normal relations... not to mention the fact that many people would not have died in 1982.

Why am I downright evil for considering that to be the ideal solution?

But nope, just like how the Emprah's dream shattered in our beloved 40k, so too has this one shattered the moment Galtieri thought an invasion would be a good idea.

That being the case, I am disposed toward upholding the islanders' wishes, as it's what we are obligated to do... and has been our position since the 1960s.

I merely made the point earlier that I can imagine there being a time, again, a century from now, wherein commitments will dictate that we abandon them. I think that given the rise of non-Western nations, it's inevitable that we will have to surrender ourselves to the tide of the times.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And apologies, Mattyrm, if I took too long putting my second appended post onto that point, I realise that my first one looked a little... crass... Especially if I am implying that many Britons might disregard Diego Garcia out of racism and only care about the Falklands because of the loss of 'our own'.

Henners91 wrote:
Care to address my point on Diego Garcia? Or is it only heartbreaking when the settlers aren't white descendants of Englishmen?

I dont see that its really relevant mate. DG is still a British territory! I know that from experience because you can get a draft there with the RM and everyone puts in for it because you spend two years sun bathing and shagging American women.

Im aware that we displaced some native Chagossians, and I of course disagree with that as well.. but it isn't something we feel as strongly about thanks to a big ass war, surely that makes logical sense right?

Henners91 wrote:And apologies, Mattyrm, if I took too long putting my second appended post onto that point, I realise that my first one looked a little... crass... Especially if I am implying that many Britons might disregard Diego Garcia out of racism and only care about the Falklands because of the loss of 'our own'.

No need to apologise I enjoy a robust debate.

You may well have a point, of course we feel more strongly about it because a few hundred British soldiers lost their lives in the conflict, as I said, is that so silly?

Of course, regards the rest, you pretty much agree with my position anyway (retaining the Falklands) so I dont think there is much more to argue about.

Diego Garcia is still British, but 2,000 inhabitants were effectively evicted to let the base get built there as the US stipulated for an uninhabited island. Now, I don't necessarily disagree with the decision, but my point was that British strategic interests have come before the welfare of our citizens before.

It's not silly, it's just tragic that it ended that way. I'd still say the ideal solution would be if the islanders ever came around to the idea of assimilation, but they shouldn't be compelled to do so.

Don't worry the argentines are all bluster and no substance.

As to Diego Garcia it is an immensely important base to the U.S. Military so no one is getting it back anytime soon.

The best response is to roll our eyes and move on...

...before hopefully thrashing them at hockey in August

Henners91 wrote:

I think that legality probably rests with the Argentines if I am honest.

You might be honest, if honestly misinformed.

Henners91 wrote:
The French settled East Falkland, the Spanish purchased it from them in order to avoid a war between the two Bourbon monarchies. Britain had simultaneously colonised West Falkland. The Spanish asked us to get off (they were still going on about that Treaty of Tordesillas nonsense) and we wouldn't vacate; it nearly went to war. The Spanish backed down and ceded our sovereignty over Port Egmont, the settlement we'd established, but not the Falkland Islands as a whole.

The French colonised in 1764 the British in 1765, both colonies were valid as neither were aware of the other or intentionally interfered with each other.

However it doesn't start there. In starts in 1690 when the UK claimed the entire islands, so in terms of date of claims the Uk predates the Spanish and French. Funny how your revisionist history seems to forget this. Anyway lets move on.

Henners91 wrote:
The British left in the 1770s (my dates are sketchy, it was a while ago I wrote an essay on this) and only left behind a plaque asserting sovereignty, whereas the Spanish continued to administer their holdings. .....

This erroneously implies Spain continued to administer holding on the Islands rather than holdings on mainland South America. Spain never had holdings on the islands.

Henners91 wrote:
Argentina asserted sovereignty over the islands in 1814; claiming that, as the islands had been administered from Buenos Aires, Argentina possessed a claim as a successor state. Luis Vernet administered a settlement.

The United Provinces of the River Plate, which later became Argentina, attempted a claim from 1814 based on a claim the Spanish never had, and as you mentioned backed down from. This post dates the first colonisation by British peoples by 49 years and the claim by the British crown by 124 years. In other words the claim has no validity.

Henners91 wrote:Luis Vernet administered a settlement. The British returned in 1833, over fifty years (apparently it is a general consensus that a state loses rights to a territory if it fails to administer them for 50+ years), and took the colony. Argie settlers did flee but apparently returned over time......

Luis Vernet administered a settlement as a straight economic concern, not as a colony of the River Plate Provinces. He even sought permission from the British consulate in 1826 as well as the River Plater authorities to settle and raise sheep and hunt seals. Later the United Provinces appointed him military commander retrospectively in 1829, which raised immediate protest from the British government. Vernet tried to flex his muscles resulting in the capture of US whalers and the consequent raid on the colony by the USS Lexington who accused the colony of being pirates. Later in 1833 the United Provinces tried to establish a penal colony on the islands but there was a rebellion with the prison governor was killed.

The British government had had enough, the colony which was set up initially with their approval as a purely economic settlement had attracted a garrison and adjoining political claims from Buenos Aires which the British government had not agreed to. HMS Clio was sent to the Falklands and took control. Counter to Argentine claims the populace were not removed from the islands, only the garrison was. In fact the polulace approved of the take over on the grounds that the United Provinces had not paid them and the British government took responsibility for their missing wages.

Henners91 wrote:
Legal claims in international law apparently derive from (source: Bluth, 'The British Resort to Force in the Falklands/Malvinas Conflict'):
(1)The occupation of terra nullius (previously unsettled land)
(2)Accrestion, whereby the geography of an area is altered by the forces of nature
(3)Cession, whereby title is transferred from one state to another by treaty
(4)Prescription, whereby territory formerly under the control of another state is possessed and controlled by a state with the acquiescence of the other state that previously had title to it

Lets look at these.

(1)The occupation of terra nullius (previously unsettled land)

Henners91 wrote:
The French settled the islands first, which gave them sovereignty under point #1. They then sold their claim to the Spanish, who gained their claim under point #4. The Argies succeeded in their claim.

The British claimed the islands in 1690, the first people to do so, and have never relinquished that claim. the British also settled the islands in tandem with the French as both colonies were unaware of each other. Sovereignty point is clearly in favour of the UK ever since France relinquished its competing claim. Even if the Frecnch had not it would still be at worst a join sovereignty and at best a wholly British claim. Spain doesn't come into it.

Spanish claims date from a treaty between Spain and Portugal which divided the new world between them. The Falklands are apprantely in the Spanish half. This however is irrelevant, the treaty claim was a blanket claim based on serctions of ann unexplored globe. The British and French and Dutch simply ignored it. Had it any validity then for example the USA and Canada dont exist (they rightfully belong to Spain) and Japan should be ceded to its rightful owners, the Portuguese.
This claim is as invalid on the Falklands as it is almost everywhere else.

(4)Prescription, whereby territory formerly under the control of another state is possessed and controlled by a state with the acquiescence of the other state that previously had title to it

Henners, I cant see them having legality surely?

It was uninhabited when it was settled, it has been settled for 200+ years, and now its full of British citizens?!

I would think a Judge would find in favour of the islanders personally.

Field Hockey or Ice Hockey?

mattyrm wrote:
I would think a Judge would find in favour of the islanders personally.

Which is why the UK offered to take the discussion to the International Court of Justice at the Hague in 1947 and 1955, on both occasions the the Argentine government refused.

mattyrm wrote:Well, unless they invade again obviously.

Then we shall crush them.

Yeah, if that happens, I hope your gov't is able to convince the Obama administration that Argie needs a spanking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

In fact the polulace approved of the take over on the grounds that the United Provinces had not paid them and the British government took responsibility for their missing wages.

Ah, sensible governing.

Amaya wrote:Field Hockey or Ice Hockey?

Field Hockey I believe, as Ice Hockey is held in the Winter Olympics.

He is quite welcome to train on any of the beaches and fields on the FI that are still littered with landmines left there by his countrymen.

Melissia wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Well, unless they invade again obviously.

Then we shall crush them.

Yeah, if that happens, I hope your gov't is able to convince the Obama administration that Argie needs a spanking.

Pfft, we can take Argentina... just so long as it doesn't involve playing them at football

Melissia wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Well, unless they invade again obviously.

Then we shall crush them.

Yeah, if that happens, I hope your gov't is able to convince the Obama administration that Argie needs a spanking.

Ridiculous! No way would we need American assistance to beat the Argies, unless the issue was settled with a game of football.

Id advise against it, we would probably lose.

In this day and age I doubt they would even be able to get ashore. The islands are pretty well defended, and speaking from experience, amphibious landings are no cake walk, even if your up against a skeleton crew.

We all know we wouldn't get a hand anyway!

Plus we have me. I can hold Port Stanley on my own against Argie conscripts!

A pissed penguin could hold Port Stanley from Argie conscripts

marv335 wrote:A pissed penguin could hold Port Stanley from Argie conscripts

Im not a pissed penguin im fething nails!

Ok ok ok.. ill do the whole island.

Henners91 wrote:Whatever happened to the days when such offence would be greeted with punitive measures in the form of a gunboat sailing up Buenos Aires guns-a-blazin'?

I think the germans shot them.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Henners91 wrote:Whatever happened to the days when such offence would be greeted with punitive measures in the form of a gunboat sailing up Buenos Aires guns-a-blazin'?

I think the germans shot them.

fething Germans.

Still, we bombed Dresden so fairs fair.

mattyrm wrote: Henners, I cant see them having legality surely?

It was uninhabited when it was settled, it has been settled for 200+ years, and now its full of British citizens?!

I would think a Judge would find in favour of the islanders personally.

Was it uninhabited in the way that the empire considered most tropical islands to be "uninhabited" (lack of white people)? Either way, the Argentinian claim of territory isn't really any weaker than the British. It's practically touching them and it's on the other side of the world from you and was claimed during a period of imperial expansion that resulted in virtually every other inhabited place turning into a sovereign nation or being absorbed into the most local states when the empire dissolved. Would you even care if it didn't have oil?

ShumaGorath wrote: Would you even care if it didn't have oil?

Yes.

Yes we would.

I think to everyone commenting here - the oil is a non-issue, it's the islanders themselves we concern ourselves with.

ShumaGorath wrote:. Would you even care if it didn't have oil?

Yes, definitely would.

The vast majority of British citizens dont give a gak about the prospect of oil, its the principal of the matter.

Plus, how is it practically touching them!? Its about as close as Iceland is to us!

Your a smart bloke Shuma, you must know the history of the place, are you just trying to wind people up or do you genuinely think that the Argies claim is as strong as the current people who inhabit it? I cant p[ossibly see it, and that's with my impartial hat on.

The British empire was doing fethed up stuff sure, but it was a long time ago.

At the end of the day, its 2012, and fething the rights of 4000 people who settled the place over 200 years ago is bs. It didnt even had an Argies on it anyway!

Tibbsy wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote: Would you even care if it didn't have oil?

Yes.

Yes we would.

I think to everyone commenting here - the oil is a non-issue, it's the islanders themselves we concern ourselves with.

Than why didn't you throw a fit with every other territory you spun off? Because these ones are mostly light skinned? I didn't see as much flexing when Hong Kong had it's birthday. I understand that having been attacked there would make you bristle and grasp. Americas certainly had it's little adventures with that kind of thing, but the most realistic solution for the Falklands is likely autonomy as a sovereign nation. It's not going to stop being a hot spot until oil stops being valuable.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Hong Kong had it's birthday

Totally different, its in mainland China and it was leased!

It really isnt the same thing. As I said, I can see it being an issue to some Argentinians, but they definitely have no better claim than the people who currently live there.

marv335 wrote:A pissed penguin could hold Port Stanley from Argie conscripts

Are you sure there's a difference between matty and a pissed penguin?

Yes, definately would.

The vast majority of British citizens dont give a gak about the prospect of oil, its the principal of the matter.

I suppose I should of said "your government" rather than "You". The average citizen of the world doesn't really care that much about individual resource holdings but everyone has pride.

Plus, how is it practically touching them!? Its about as close as Iceland is to us

The distance being about .5 texas'! I guess my scales for territorial proximity are a bit different being from a very large country.

Your a smart bloke Shuma, you must know the history of the place, are you just trying to wind people up or do you genuinelly think that the Argies claim is as strong as the current people who inhabit it?

I think it's better off being spun off to form it's own state. At that point it becomes a scenario of pure territorial aggression from the Argentinians, rather than some sort of pity play at having "rightful ownership" to a landmass whose current owner isn't visible on the same satellite map. At that point Argentinas belligerence becomes a world problem, and the world has much better force projection than just you guys.

The British empire was doing fethed up stuff sure, but it was a long time ago.

At the end of the day, its 2012, and fething the rights of 4000 people who settled the place over 200 years ago is bs. It didnt even had an Argies on it anyway!

Hence my belief that it's probably better off being a city state solution, rather than a tenuous and likely resource driven territorial holding by a former imperial power.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
Hong Kong had it's birthday

Totally different, its in mainland China and it was leased!

I don't know if I would use a coerced "lease" in a place that remembers you for a war forcing legal opium sale is the best defense . I'll agree that it's a different situation though. There are probably small colonies in Africa and south america that got spun off or absorbed that are far more similar to the situation in the Falklands.

It really isnt the same thing. As I said, I can see it being an issue to some Argentinians, but they definitely have no better claim than the people who currently live there.

I aggree. I think the people that live there have the best claim at all and are a pawn in what is little more than a series of resource conflicts. Argentina certainly wouldn't care about the islands were they dry and I doubt the British government would rattle so many sabers if it wasn't so transparently valuable.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Tibbsy wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote: Would you even care if it didn't have oil?

Yes.

Yes we would.

I think to everyone commenting here - the oil is a non-issue, it's the islanders themselves we concern ourselves with.

Than why didn't you throw a fit with every other territory you spun off? Because these ones are mostly light skinned? I didn't see as much flexing when Hong Kong had it's birthday. I understand that having been attacked there would make you bristle and grasp. Americas certainly had it's little adventures with that kind of thing, but the most realistic solution for the Falklands is likely autonomy as a sovereign nation. It's not going to stop being a hot spot until oil stops being valuable.

You might remember they already had one war over the Falklands, long before the prospect of oil. British tend to be s tubborn lot, especially when they've already kicked the crap out of you for it.