|
Post by scumbuster on Jan 3, 2016 21:21:51 GMT -5
Buenos Aires (AFP) - Argentina's new conservative government affirmed on Sunday that it will continue to press the country's claims to the Falkland Islands, which Britain insists that it owns.
Britain and Argentina fought a two-month long war over the archipelago in 1982, in which 649 Argentinian servicemen and 255 British were killed.
Decades after the Falklands War, ownership of the rocky outpost remains at the center of diplomatic tensions between the two nations.
"Argentina renews its firm commitment to peacefully settling its differences, to international law and multilateralism, the foreign ministry under the country's new president, Mauricio Macri, said in a statement.
Buenos Aires "invites the United Kingdom to resume as soon as possible negotiations aimed at settling fairly and definitively, the sovereignty dispute over the Malvinas (Falklands) islands, South Georgia, South Sandwich islands and surrounding territorial seas," the statement said.
Argentina maintains that it inherited the remote, windswept Falklands from Spain when it gained independence.
Britain says it has historically ruled them and that the islanders should have the right to self-determination.
|
|
|
Post by suba on Jan 4, 2016 10:16:13 GMT -5
"Argentina renews its firm commitment to peacefully settling its differences,"
Nazi Germany said something similar at the end of WW2.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2016 15:56:31 GMT -5
Unfortunately the Brits are being governed more and more by political correctness and sense of guilt as the Americans---
Hopefully the Brits will still adhere to a good fight when necessary --- as well as the Americans--
Quite unlike the feel good military's of the rest of the western world
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 4, 2016 15:57:33 GMT -5
If it is true that Argentina inherited the islands from Spain they have in my opinion a prevailing right to the Falklands. The British settled the Islands with its people when the Argentine's weren't looking which seems to be a sneaky way to gain the islands. Maybe a fair solution would be to move all of the inhabitants to one of the islands and hand over the other to Argentina.
|
|
|
Post by suba on Jan 4, 2016 18:28:22 GMT -5
Spanish sovereignty of the islands derived from papal concession and the occupation of territories in the South Atlantic. London never accepted the pope's authority over territorial disputes in Tudor times, or now, in British eyes that's like some mad mullah today claiming that Las Vegas is part of Iran - religious nonsense.
The first recorded landing was made by an Englishman, Captain John Strong, in 1690.
Also, if the right of self determination doesn't apply to the Falkland Islanders, because they are not the original inhabitants, then it also doesn't apply to the 90% of Argentinian people who are also not the original inhabitants. You can't have it both ways! Either you accept the rights of the Islanders, or you disenfranchise most of the Argentine population.
Britain has twice offered to go through the International Courts of Justice to resolve the issue of sovereignty, and both times Argentina has declined. Indeed, Argentina announced it would not respect any findings of the court. A clear indication that they know their claim is based on little more than myth.
Not one inch of the islands has ever been owned by Argentina - and never will be - see the events of 1982 for reference.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2016 11:18:56 GMT -5
You brought up 1982, I don't know if the UK would be foolish enough to again sacrifice 255 of it's young men to hang on to those inhospitable, sparsely populated and infertile islands of less than 3000 people, hundreds of them being Chileans. That war happened 34 years ago. It doesn't matter to me one way or another, but it seems strange that Argentina keeps trying to claim the islands. The Argentines and the entire Spanish speaking community seems to be convinced that the Islas Malvinas belong rightfully to Argentina, but then Nicaraguans feel that the San Andrés archipelago belongs to them even though it is historically English and people on San Andrés speak English. San Andrés is of great value to Colombia though as a tourist destination, it would definitely be worth fighting for.
|
|
|
Post by suba on Jan 5, 2016 12:29:47 GMT -5
"I don't know if the UK would be foolish enough to again sacrifice 255 of it's young men to hang on to those inhospitable, sparsely populated and infertile islands of less than 3000 people, hundreds of them being Chileans"
There is not a shadow of doubt that the UK would go to war again over the islands and do it tomorrow if need be, any government that refused would be out of office and a new one installed who would carry out the wishes of the overwhelming majority.
As for the islands being infertile and sparsely populated, the Argentinian government has two reasons they use to try and claim the islands, the first (as has been the case for basket case Argentinian governments for a long long time) the claim is a distraction from the corruption and downright abysmal economic policies enforced on the people of Argentina by successive governments, and two, huge oil and gas deposits have been found off the coast of the islands. You will of course remember that Argentina was happy to let the population starve previously whereas the British supported the population regardless of the value to the UK.
As for the different nationalities, the vast majority of of them (70%) are British, a very small percentage are Chilean (6%).
"We are as much a people as those in Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil and Chile and many other South American countries whose inhabitants are of principally European, Indigenous or African descent". (Councillor Mike Summers OBE)
Britain believes the people on the islands have a right to self determination - unlike Argentina, who like Venezuela, would enforce whatever corrupt money grabbing policies they felt like on the population.
"San Andrés is of great value to Colombia though as a tourist destination, it would definitely be worth fighting for."
There lies the difference between Britain and Colombia, we don't take into account whether the place is valuable financially, the people are British and have voted overwhelmingly to stay that way, from what you are saying Colombia would hand over anywhere that wasn't worth a few dollars as well as her citizens.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2016 17:54:39 GMT -5
San Andrés has mainly cultural and emotional value for Colombia, as there are only two kinds of Colombians, those who have been to San Andrés and those who are dreaming of some day being able to go. But I am curious why you feel so strongly about the Falklands since I'm assuming your English and the Falkland inhabitants are Scottish and Welsh if I remember correctly.
|
|
|
Post by suba on Jan 5, 2016 18:20:39 GMT -5
1 The inhabitants are British, as are the Scots and the Welsh. 2 I believe in democracy and they've voted democratically to remain British. 3 The soldiers that died did so protecting British interests.
Tell me, would you argue that Texas really belongs to Mexico?
|
|
|
Post by robbierobnj on Jan 5, 2016 22:11:09 GMT -5
If it is true that Argentina inherited the islands from Spain they have in my opinion a prevailing right to the Falklands. The British settled the Islands with its people when the Argentine's weren't looking which seems to be a sneaky way to gain the islands. Maybe a fair solution would be to move all of the inhabitants to one of the islands and hand over the other to Argentina. Let me tell you how this will be settled Argentina will get squat and the people on the islands want no part of Argentina and I cant say I blame them Why would they ever enter into negotiations again? It would be silly The Brits will simply tell em f*#k off Like they told India about the queens jewels
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2016 22:37:01 GMT -5
Since I'm sold on the tropics I can't understand why anybody would even want to live there, never mind risking a war over over them islands. Just thinking of living in Patagonia like one of my Facebook friends does gives me the creeps. The soil isn't fertile, there isn't enough sun to grow anything, some sparse vegetation only for herding sheep...I'm sure the beef they are raising needs to be fed all year round with feed imported from the UK, not very profitable. So they discovered oil, place is so far away from any country that would buy it, the profit is eaten up by transportation and by moving equipment and rigs over there. Oil sells for cheap now and probably for a long time to come. I could see a big advantage for the inhabitants if the Islands were on friendly terms with Argentina. Tourism To Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil, it's less than 500 km to the mainland, no airfares needed, a ferry would do. Where can they go now, it would cost them an arm and a leg to visit the UK. The islands are just too far away from anywhere except for Argentina.
|
|
|
Post by suba on Jan 7, 2016 15:42:45 GMT -5
"The islands are just too far away from anywhere except for Argentina."
Nowhere near far enough away from Argentina as far as the islanders are concerned.
|
|