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.

 Manchu wrote:

 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.

I say the people have spoken on the matter, that is that.

 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.

 sebster wrote:

 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

Isn't the Welsh-speaking enclave in Peru? Or am I remembering that incorrectly?

 Grey Templar wrote:

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.

 Palindrome wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

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.

I believe that the states were once a weak nation under the protection of a major power.

How things change!

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.

 Palindrome wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
After all IIRC but they've lost every war they've been in.

IIRC the Falklands was the only foreign war that Argentia was ever involved with, aside from being a token ally in WWII. Lots of civil wars though.

No there were a few wars in South America.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:
@Howard A Treesong

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Palindrome wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

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.

Thats ok. We find the British hilarious too, when they're not oppressing the oppressed. Free Liverpool!

 Frazzled wrote:


Thats ok. We find the British hilarious too, when they're not oppressing the oppressed. Free Liverpool!

Return Texas to it's rightful owner...

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

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).

(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...

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

 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.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Thats ok. We find the British hilarious too, when they're not oppressing the oppressed. Free Liverpool!

Return Texas to it's rightful owner...

Brit expat is so so funny, but so so wrong. The original owners-

chaos0xomega wrote:

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:

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),.....

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.

chaos0xomega wrote:

......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.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Yup... I mean, Argentina does have the ability to make a legitimate claim to the islands based on history.

Where are your sources for such a daft statement.

 sebster wrote:

 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.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Argentinas claim to the Falkland Islands

Care to defend this in light of the above?

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.

That seems pretty thorough.

 Frazzled wrote:


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.

 Ketara wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


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.

 kronk wrote:

 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.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


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.

 Ketara wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


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?

 Frazzled wrote:

3. Good so Spain gave up their claims. What is Argentina actually arguing then?

It's close to us, so it should be ours. In a nutshell. The rest of it is all obfuscation.

Although considering it's 350 miles from Argentina, that's kind of like saying that Morocco should rule the Canary Islands.

 Orlanth wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

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.

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),.....

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.