Frazzled wrote:

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.

ShumaGorath wrote:
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.

Frazzled wrote:Yes, it has even less merit but a stronger British military. The Argentinian government knows it. Nothing will happen.

The two most important factors in winning a modern war is continued vocal support from the populous, and the state of your armed forces.

The vast majority of our combat troops are grizzled veterans, we fight lots of wars (probably a bad thing) and they don't. Veterancy in real life is almost as important as in Warhammer! Who would take scouts to beat first company veterans?

Our soldiers.. take the Royal Marines, last time out many were merely highly trained, nowadays 99% of them will have done several hard tours in Afghanistan and are used to combat, they would absolutely eat them for breakfast.

I do find the commercial offensive though. As I said, I only hope the the majority of international observers see their endless whinging, illegal blockades (The poor buggers cant get two eggs with their breakfast anymore!) and propaganda TV commercials and rightly think that the British are being far more dignified about the whole thing.

Frazzled wrote:I'd rather be petty than dignified.
Put all their officials coming to the Olympics in the cooler for the duration and then escort back onto the planes after.

then they might forget what the score was and try again...

ShumaGorath wrote:

What are your thoughts on Palestine these days!

purplefood wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I'd rather be petty than dignified.
Put all their officials coming to the Olympics in the cooler for the duration and then escort back onto the planes after.

We could just ignore Argentina as a country...

notprop wrote:

purplefood wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I'd rather be petty than dignified.
Put all their officials coming to the Olympics in the cooler for the duration and then escort back onto the planes after.

We could just ignore Argentina as a country...

But what would we do without Frey Bentos pies?

You have to think about the pies!

ShumaGorath wrote:Either way, the Argentinian claim of territory isn't really any weaker than the British.

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Either way, the Argentinian claim of territory isn't really any weaker than the British.

It's weaker than the Falklanders' claims.

They live there, the Argentinians don't.

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Either way, the Argentinian claim of territory isn't really any weaker than the British.

It's weaker than the Falklanders' claims.

They live there, the Argentinians don't.

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'?

Orlanth wrote:

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.

Orlanth wrote:

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.

Orlanth wrote:

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.

Orlanth wrote:

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.

Orlanth wrote:

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.

Orlanth wrote:

Henners91 wrote:
(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 Spanish never had any valid claim to the Falklands.

Orlanth wrote:

Henners91 wrote:
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.

Your argeument is very thin.
There were NO Argentine settlers on the islands. when Vernet opened up his colony, with British approval, Argentina did not exist.
Secondly the colonists that Vernet did import were mostly European settlers, later some Native South Americans. The colonists included some from the UK.

Orlanth wrote:

Henners91 wrote:
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.

The population of the islands see it differently and it is transparent that any attempt of peaceful assimilation as suggested by bleeding heart liberals and other idiots is pie in the sky fancy.
Argentina cannot be trusted, not by the UK and nor by the islanders:

Evidence for this assumption.
1. Islanders repeatedly receive hate mail and malicious phone calls from Argentina.
2. Argentinians repeatedly refer to the islanders by racist epithets, for example 'kelper'. This is not discouraged by the government
3. Argentina speaks a different language and has a different demographic and cultural base.
add these three together and you can see what the islanders would be as part of Argentina, an unwanted ethnic minority that is likely to be short changed on equality and opportunity.

4. The Islanders gain most of their income from fishing. Argentina has tried to remove those fishing rights claiming they belong to Argentina not the Flaklands/Malvinas.
5 The Islanders are set to inherit great wealth from oil. Argentina has tried to remove those mining rights claiming they belong to Argentina not the Flaklands/Malvinas.
If Argentina manages to obtain the islands the oil and fishing wealth of the islanders would revert to the mainland. As the islanders are an unwanted minority and a tiny proportion of what would be the Argentina population they would be very hard done by.

6. Argentina recently removed oil mining rights from Spanish company YPF in a nationalisation move without compensation.
If Argentina is willing to nationalise the oil mining rights of a Spanish company without compensation, with Spain being seen as and island and the cultural origin of the Argentine state, how much worse will it be for Falkland islanders (who are entirely unwanted according to the Argentine government). It is clear that any transfer will result in the complete disenfranchisement of the Falkland islanders.

7. Argentina has repeatedly referred to the islanders as a non-people. They have flatly denied their right to claim self determination as described in the UN charter..
This should be seen as proof that Argentina will not honour the rights of the islanders after a transfer and thast they would become second class citizens.

8. Argentina is not a stable country, while it is currently a democracy it all too frequently arranges issues of race politics, of which the Falklands is one.
What guarantee do we have that the islanders will not become 'disappeared' at some point in the future. I find it a rather hard call frankly, if we cannot remove terrorists from our shores in case they get mistreated, why should we remove loyal citizens?
I would not fancy my chances long term as an Argentine citizen who was once a pro-British Falklander, the discrimination may well pass through to future generations. Its not worth the risk, except paradoxically to the liberal set.

I find is depressing that papers like the Guardian constantly spout 'ethical transfer of sovereignty'. There is no such thing. It may be politically correct but it would be the most ethically unsound move the UK could make over the issue. The Guardian however is more concerned with a misplaced colonial guilt than any form of rationality. there is not colonial guilt on the Falklands, the current population were the original settlers. were the Malvinas in Africa they might have more of a point. They are not though, but bleeding heart liberals cannot see the difference.

Orlanth wrote:

Henners91 wrote:
...Nothing like writing an undergraduate essay to give one a smug sense of knowledge and authority on any subject

Smug, if you say so, but hardly an educated opinion. Look again.

Joey wrote:Ban the Argentinian team from attending.

Joey wrote:Ban the Argentinian team from attending.