Who should have control of the Falklands?
The UK
90.8% (177)
90.8% (177)
Argentina
7.7% (15)
7.7% (15)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: The Falklands - Who should it belong to?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

frobalt:
Before I start, I'll admit this: I don't know much relating to the Falklands, which is 1 of the reasons I've created this thread.

Another of those reasons is an article a friend linked on Facebook. In summary, Argentina seem to think they'll control the Falklands within 20 years.

This baffles me, as I can't seem to understand why the Argentines seem to think they have the right to rule over that land. Having a quick look at wikipedia reveals that the British have had control of the Falklands for about 180 years now.

Personally, I don't think proximity to them should give them rights over the land.

Can someone please enlighten me as to why the Argentines seem to think it's theirs? Also, do you think that the Argentines should have control over it? (Which would force the population to relocate).

Edit:

After having read the wikipedia entry in a bit more detail, it seems that Argentina seems to believe that the British illegally took control of the islands in 1833, expelling the Argentine residents and preventing them from resettling.

The current residents of the Falklands are wanting to remain British, but Argentina seems to think that their opinion doesn't matter and that they should be under Argentine rule anyway.

So, are the Argentines right in thinking they should rule the island? Or should the Falklanders opinions be taken into account and have them remain British?

Whatever the situation in 1833 the precedent has been set and the Falklands have been settled for over 200 years and the residents and the descendants wish to remain a part of the British Commonwealth. Whether or not Britain has exemplified the ideal, Self determination does matter. It's wrong when Britain wants to ignore the idea and it's wrong for Argentina to ignore the wishes of the People on the Falklands. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Helmholtz Watson:
It has already been pointed out by Darken12 that Argentina had a settlement there prior to the British and that they forced the Argentinians to leave. As for the opinions of the current inhabitants, I've already addressed how disingenuous the government seems to be about their claim to care about self determination. When it suits them they support the idea, but when they feel it doesn't, apparently they declare that they'll "resist Scottish independence with everything we've got".

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

I'm Scottish and we will vote on whether or not we become independant, that's a fact.

Thinking that the SNP wanting an independant Scotland means that the Scottish people want an independant Scotland is ridiculous. The fact is the people are incredibly split, with the majority of people here in the Highlands getting ready to vote against independance. Thinking we're some sort of repressed nation being held back by the big bad English is nothing but a childish delusion. There's a reason why Salmond was going to give us 3 questions (Yes. No. No but with more power for our Scottish Parliment) because he suspects that people will vote against independance, which is also the reason why the other parties forced him to change it to 2, because they also suspect people will vote against independance. People may vote for the SNP because they happen to be a good party, but I've only ever met two people that agree with what their party stands for.

Cameron isn't infringing upon our right to self-determination. He's the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, our Prime Minister, saying that he's going to do everything he can to keep the United Kingdom united. It doesn't suit England, Wales and Northern Ireland if Scotland became independant, and frankly, it doesn't suit Scotland for it to become independant either.

In other words this situation is not remotely like the Falklands situation. And Cameron's opinion on the UK staying united doesn't mean that he doesn't care about self-determination when it suits him, it's just him saying what a lot of people, including a large amount of Scots, want to hear.

Johnny Novgorod:
I'm just glad the Falklanders get euros.

The Falklands use pounds.

Overhead:

The only thing I'd add is that Thatcher was sinking in the polls and she benefited quite well from warmongering rather than trying to seek a diplomatic solution, as both sides seemed to rush headlong into war with no hint of diplomatic recourse being a possibility.

I think the goverment documents about the conflict were recently released to the public.

The Brits were not expecting the invasion, they thought they could still solve things diplomatically. When the word of attack came, they didn't even know if they could retake the islands themselves, they were utterly unprepared. As were the Argentina (?) forces who did not expect the UK to send their military halfway across the world.

Anyway, more on topic: The islands are British, they have been for a very long time, the only people living there are British, and they have the strongest claim on the islands.

Johnny Novgorod:

Helmholtz Watson:

frobalt:

So, are the Argentines right in thinking they should rule the island? Or should the Falklanders opinions be taken into account and have them remain British?

The Argentinians are right, you pointed out yourself why Argentinians feel this way.

Also, what year is this? Is it the 1800's? No? Then I don't think that Britain has a right to claim Argentina anymore than they have a right to claim Hong Kong or India. Just because you control a place, doesn't make it justified.

I just realized Helmholtz Watson gets sent to the Falklands at the end of Brave New World D:

lol, that is quite ironic, but I thought he wanted to live somewhere cold and miserable. I would assume that the Falkalands is warm, no?

UK has the power to keep those islands (and many others) under their control. They have bases all across the globe including Gibraltar and Cyprus. Hell, this one barely has any people on it. Come on Argentina, lets see what you got!

Pluvia:
I'm Scottish and we will vote on whether or not we become independant, that's a fact.

I didn't dispute that, I just stated that Cameron doesn't seem to like it.

Pluvia:
It doesn't suit England, Wales and Northern Ireland if Scotland became independant, and frankly, it doesn't suit Scotland for it to become independant either.

It doesn't seem like everybody agrees with you on that, but that's for you guys to vote and decide.

Pluvia:

In other words this situation is not remotely like the Falklands situation. And Cameron's opinion on the UK staying united doesn't mean that he doesn't care about self-determination when it suits him, it's just him saying what a lot of people, including a large amount of Scots, want to hear.

I think its a bit earlier to say that, I'll wait till you guys vote and see how Cameron reacts if Scotland votes in favor of independence.

Helmholtz Watson:
I didn't dispute that, I just stated that Cameron doesn't seem to like it.

Either do I.

Pluvia:
It doesn't seem like everybody agrees with you on that[/url], but that's for you guys to vote and decide.

Of course not, but his entire argument is a Braveheart induced patriotic fantasy. He's kidding himself if he thinks Scotland will turn out in any way other than Ireland did if we go independant.

Pluvia:
I think its a bit earlier to say that, I'll wait till you guys vote and see how Cameron reacts if Scotland votes in favor of independence.

His reaction is irrelevant. He will not be able to do anything about it and frankly, given his comments about self-determination, he most likely wont. Saying "Cameron says somewhere should have the right to self-determinate but maybe in the future he might change his mind" isn't a good argument. In other words, Cameron saying he wants to keep the United Kingdom united doesn't mean he's ignoring a countries right to self-determinate, and future hypothetical situations based off nothing don't do anything to help your point.

On the other hand Agentina is the one ignoring somewheres right to self-determinate. It's up to the Falklands to decide who they want to belong to. Argentina is the one pretending the people of the Falklands simply don't exist.

Helmholtz Watson:

Johnny Novgorod:

Helmholtz Watson:
The Argentinians are right, you pointed out yourself why Argentinians feel this way.

Also, what year is this? Is it the 1800's? No? Then I don't think that Britain has a right to claim Argentina anymore than they have a right to claim Hong Kong or India. Just because you control a place, doesn't make it justified.

I just realized Helmholtz Watson gets sent to the Falklands at the end of Brave New World D:

lol, that is quite ironic, but I thought he wanted to live somewhere cold and miserable. I would assume that the Falkalands is warm, no?

Oh God, no. They're cold, nearly barren rocks in the middle of the South Atlantic, they have penguins there. There's nothing to stop the cold ocean air- the islands are very chilly and windswept. Not a place I'd like to go, frankly.

I'm siding with the British here, just because Argentina once owned them does not mean that claim is still valid. It's like France suddenly demanding ownership over indochina because they once owned that region. The "it used to be ours" argument is invalid.

Helmholtz Watson:
It has already been pointed out that Argentina had a settlement there prior to the British and that they forced the Argentinians to leave.

Yes, and the British had a settlement there prior to the Argentinians. For many years, British and French / Spanish / Argentinian settlements co-existed. However, these were not really permanent colonies - they were more transient commercial bases that existed to support industries like whaling and sealing.

The most major settlement you are talking about was set up as an independent commercial venture by a German using a mixed nationality population (plenty of them British), who had permission from both the British and Argentinian governments: in fact both the British and Argentines thought he was operating under their jurisdiction.

The British in fact did not force these people to leave. The Americans considered the settlement to be involved in piracy and destroyed it, at which point the islands remained without governance until the British asserted a proper colony. Of the few dozen individuals still inhabiting them at that point, none were compelled to leave by the British.

the Falkland Islands were actually in the firing line to be quietly palmed off to the Argentinians by the UK government before the 82 invasion because it was frankly considered a non-economically-viable place for anyone British to live. this is one of the key reasons thatcher always considered it a fundamentally "stupid" thing for the Argentinians to do. if they hadn't they'd have quietly got the islands anyway (and those people who's "self determination" everyone is now so big on would have either been quietly relocated or would have become Argentinians).

ofc then we had the war and it stands as a rallying point for British jingoism and is subsidised to the hilt as a result...and now there's talk of oil...

my view of the whole thing is actually to agree with thatcher. it was "stupid". it was even more stupid given the number of people and ships we lost fighting a war over an island thousands of miles away we didn't actually want where the majority of the population were sheep.

i lost good friends during the Falklands war. it was at a period of time where i was almost in the navy and knew a great many who were. i kinda resent they died for the kind of people who live on secluded islands and demand support from the state for that choice. ive met plenty of people like that being Scottish...they tend to be really big on making sure they always have a post office...

but time passes...then "oil !"...i guess.

Sleekit:
the Falkland Islands were actually in the firing line to be quietly palmed off to the Argentinians by the UK government before the 82 invasion because it was frankly considered a non-economically-viable place for anyone British to live. this is one of the key reasons thatcher always considered it a fundamentally "stupid" thing for the Argentinians to do. if they hadn't they'd have quietly got the islands anyway (and those people who's "self determination" everyone is now so big on would have either been quietly relocated or would have become Argentinians).

ofc then we had the war and it stands as a rallying point for British jingoism and is subsidised to the hilt as a result...and now there's talk of oil...

my view of the whole thing is actually to agree with thatcher. it was "stupid". it was even more stupid given the number of people and ships we lost fighting a war over an island thousands of miles away we didn't actually want where the majority of the population were sheep.

i lost good friends during the Falklands war. it was at a period of time where i was almost in the navy and knew a great many who were. i kinda resent they died for the kind of people who live on secluded islands and demand support from the state for that choice. ive met plenty of people like that being Scottish...they tend to be really big on making sure they always have a post office...

but time passes...then "oil !"...i guess.

There's oil? Why the hell bother? The infrastructure to transport the damn thing won't be worth the hassle. Best sell it to the Argentinians.

Helmholtz Watson:

Johnny Novgorod:

Helmholtz Watson:
The Argentinians are right, you pointed out yourself why Argentinians feel this way.

Also, what year is this? Is it the 1800's? No? Then I don't think that Britain has a right to claim Argentina anymore than they have a right to claim Hong Kong or India. Just because you control a place, doesn't make it justified.

I just realized Helmholtz Watson gets sent to the Falklands at the end of Brave New World D:

lol, that is quite ironic, but I thought he wanted to live somewhere cold and miserable. I would assume that the Falkalands is warm, no?

Nope, the islands are very much cold and miserable, much like the Argentine south. You're a long way from the Caribbean, cowboy.

Pluvia:
Of course not, but his entire argument is a Braveheart induced patriotic fantasy. He's kidding himself if he thinks Scotland will turn out in any way other than Ireland did if we go independant.

actually Nightspore is about one of the least "Braveheart" Scots you could have picked out.

tbh i don't think we have any. not between me, Nightspore and Magic anyway (who are all in favour of Independence for various reasons).

personally i highly doubt hardcore rangers fans and the orange lodge are going to demand a separate state or start an armed insurrection. that little societal bubble barely extends beyond Glasgows city limits and even then represents a minority, if deeply held, view. i'm not going to pass comment on what i think of such people except to say its probably even less than i think of yer average "Braveheart" nationalist.

fyi i live in Falkirk (right slap dab in the middle) and anecdotally i don't know anyone who's not going to vote for Independence...

if you want to start a topic about Scottish Independence go right ahead but "Gibsons Law" (which states you invalidate any contribution in a topic on Scottish independence if you mention Braveheart) will be applied :P

Glasgow:

There's oil? Why the hell bother? The infrastructure to transport the damn thing won't be worth the hassle. Best sell it to the Argentinians.

well yes it would be far better if any oil extracted in the South Atlantic could go ashore in South America that's one of the things that'll play out in time geopolitically due to market pressures being applied.

Helmholtz Watson:

Also, what year is this? Is it the 1800's? No? Then I don't think that Britain has a right to claim Argentina anymore than they have a right to claim Hong Kong or India. Just because you control a place, doesn't make it justified.

Grumble grumble Gaza grumble Palestine mutter grumble insinuations grumble mutter.

The Falklands are British by self-determination, by historical justification, and more recently by military force. The only respect in which it's "not British" is distance from the UK mainland. In which case I guess the "thieving, Imperialistic" USA had better "give back" Alaska and Hawaii. Or something.

Helmholtz Watson:
So forgive me if I don't take their word for it that they genuinely care about the self determination of the islands.

Legitimately why dont you care? I dont give a toss if my government seems to change its mind about when self determination is a deciding factor, if i CAN vote to say it is then i will, i think its the most important factor of all.

Why do you disregard it? You cant just wave it away by saying "Well the British government doesnt care! So there!" because that doesnt explain why it isnt the most important factor. You just pointed out that a government doesnt think it is. So? That doesnt make it true. Nor does it explain why you dont think self determination is a right.

frobalt:

The current residents of the Falklands are wanting to remain British

Batou667:

The Falklands are British by self-determination, by historical justification, and more recently by military force.

Not really true. More Falklands Islanders want to remain British than want to be Argentinian, this is true; but more than that want to be independent, IIRC.

But I've always felt that neither the UK nor Argentina are truly interested in what the Islanders want. Its a handy tool, to be used or ignored as seen fit. Its use in the diplomatic argument is distracting at best from the true motivations.

I remember being told by one of my lecturers that one of the UK's primary motivations is that the Falklands have a coastline that faces the Antarctic, and thus British claim to the Falklands could legitimise mining operations if it becomes legal to do so in the future. It's a kind of future-investment. The Argentinians already have a border facing the Antarctic, of course.

Then, you've got to also keep in mind that Maggie had told Galtieri that she had little interest in those little islands, and had certainly not given any indication that they were worth going to war over.... and then polls began to show her as the least popular PM in recent history. A successful war against a military dictatorship later, and she wins the election. The British (of which I am one) probably have a better claim than the Argentinians, but neither has a very good claim at all. Our stated motivations are smokescreens, our memory of the war false.

If we go by the argument that laws of conquest do not apply then no country exists. Every single country on Earth is made up of millennia of conquests that have gone back and forth until borders have been settled. It's only in the last 60 odd years that these kinds of things get frowned upon and even then it still happens (Israel and several African countries).

Countries and colonies changed hands half a dozen times inside a single lifetime, claims that are old and have been superseded are no longer valid otherwise Greece owns half the bloody world (that'd fix their cash problems quite quickly).

Argentina might have had a valid claim in the 1800's but now? Nope, sorry but your claim is no longer accepted. Argentina needs to give it a rest and stop arguing for something that they have no legitimate claim over.

Helmholtz Watson:
As for the opinions of the current inhabitants, I've already addressed how disingenuous the government seems to be about their claim to care about self determination. When it suits them they support the idea, but when they feel it doesn't, apparently they declare that they'll "resist Scottish independence with everything we've got".

To be fair there, if the referendum comes up a pro Scottish independence, then Scotland will become independent. It's not as if England is going to invade Scotland.Cameron saying that is much like any politician saying what he will and won't politically fight for.

Anyways, I'm probably rather biased, beig British, but I'm going with the majoritory here. The Falklanders want to stay British, and British they should stay. Argentina isn't really in a position to do anything here.

There really needs to be a, 'Whoever the Islanders want,' option in the poll. Yeah that just means the UK right now, but it doesn't mean the same thing as the UK option.

Why not give it to a third party? Like Sweden?

Batou667:

Helmholtz Watson:

Also, what year is this? Is it the 1800's? No? Then I don't think that Britain has a right to claim Argentina anymore than they have a right to claim Hong Kong or India. Just because you control a place, doesn't make it justified.

Grumble grumble Gaza grumble Palestine mutter grumble insinuations grumble mutter.

*Quietly mumbles about..* Jews being indigenous to the land and living there along with Palestinians and Jews forced into exile for a long period of time *stops mumbling* .

Batou667:

The Falklands are British by self-determination, by historical justification, and more recently by military force. The only respect in which it's "not British" is distance from the UK mainland. In which case I guess the "thieving, Imperialistic" USA had better "give back" Alaska and Hawaii. Or something.

Historical Justification? haha I guess so if you believe in "might is right".

Pluvia:
snip

I think you are misjudging Nightspore. Please read what Sleekit had to say.

BiscuitTrouser:

Helmholtz Watson:
So forgive me if I don't take their word for it that they genuinely care about the self determination of the islands.

Legitimately why dont you care? I dont give a toss if my government seems to change its mind about when self determination is a deciding factor, if i CAN vote to say it is then i will, i think its the most important factor of all.

Why do you disregard it? You cant just wave it away by saying "Well the British government doesnt care! So there!" because that doesnt explain why it isnt the most important factor. You just pointed out that a government doesnt think it is. So? That doesnt make it true. Nor does it explain why you dont think self determination is a right.

I'm not saying that it should be completely disregarded, what I'm saying is that I find your governments sincerity on their concern about the self-determination of the people of the Falklands to be very hollow.

Da Orky Man:

To be fair there, if the referendum comes up a pro Scottish independence, then Scotland will become independent. It's not as if England is going to invade Scotland.Cameron saying that is much like any politician saying what he will and won't politically fight for.

Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not accusing Cameron or England of considering an invasion of Scotland if they choose independence. What I am saying is that I don't think that England legitimately cares about self determination and that they just support the concept when it benefits them. Its kind of like how my country uses the United Nations when it suits us[1] and we disregard them when it doesn't[2].

Da Orky Man:

Argentina isn't really in a position to do anything here.

Agreed, I don't think Argentina has the ability to really do anything about it.

[1] voting in favor of embargoes and sanctions against Iran
[2] refusal to join ICC

Helmholtz Watson:
I'm not saying that it should be completely disregarded, what I'm saying is that I find your governments sincerity on their concern about the self-determination of the people of the Falklands to be very hollow.

But you are against the wishes of the people living in the Falklands. Tell me, specifically, like i asked WHY self determination is trumped by whatever you are bringing to the table. My point is the UK governments opinion, sleazy or not, is totally irrelevant. This time they are supporting what is correct, ulterior reasons aside. And that is that people choose their own government. I asked you why, independent of what my government says about it, their self determination does not matter. If it did matter you wouldn't oppose their wishes.

Please do NOT include anything about the UK government in your answer. Just tell me why you dont think those people should be able to decide their own fate.

BiscuitTrouser:

Helmholtz Watson:
I'm not saying that it should be completely disregarded, what I'm saying is that I find your governments sincerity on their concern about the self-determination of the people of the Falklands to be very hollow.

But you are against the wishes of the people living in the Falklands. Tell me, specifically, like i asked WHY self determination is trumped by whatever you are bringing to the table. My point is the UK governments opinion, sleazy or not, is totally irrelevant. This time they are supporting what is correct, ulterior reasons aside. And that is that people choose their own government. I asked you why, independent of what my government says about it, their self determination does not matter. If it did matter you wouldn't oppose their wishes.

Ah ok, sorry about not answering your question properly.
My feelings on the matter are that England was wrong in how they obtained the land and drove off the Argentinians. That said, I agree with the other people who said how Thatcher thought it was stupid to fight over the land and that the Argentinians seemed to have dug themselves in a hole by trying to forcefully take back the islands when apparently the UK was going to give it back to them anyways.

Sleekit:
ofc then we had the war and it stands as a rallying point for British jingoism and is subsidised to the hilt as a result...and now there's talk of oil...

Jingoism is extreme nationalism and a desire to conquer the world. Using it for a defensive war aimed to drive off an imperialistic bloodthirsty dictatorship that has invaded you, is wildly inapropriate.

Just let the people decide. If they want to stay British then let them and if they want to become Argentinian or even completely independent then let them, as long as it doesn't cost too much taxpayer money.

The stupid political rhetoric really needs to end as well. As a UK citizen I couldn't really care what happens to the islands as long as they are not forcibly invaded again and the current inhabitants of the island are happy with the situation.

Helmholtz Watson:

frobalt:

Why are you backing the Argentinians?

As I said, the British used force to take the land from the the Argentinians after they got the islands from Spain.

And how did the Spaniards get it? How the British got it in the past is irrelevant. The fact is that it has been under British rule for more than a century and that the people want it to remain British. if the people in the Falklands wanted to be part of Argentina you may have a point but it isn't the case. This is not British imperialism or whatever you may think, this is Britain safeguarding legitimate sovereignty.

Neither of your poll options. The Falklands should belong to its people. At this moment in time the islanders wish to remain British and the Argentinian governement need to learn to respect it. Granted we won't give them a choice but it would be nice if they figured it out on their own.

Blablahb:

Sleekit:
ofc then we had the war and it stands as a rallying point for British jingoism and is subsidised to the hilt as a result...and now there's talk of oil...

Jingoism is extreme nationalism and a desire to conquer the world. Using it for a defensive war aimed to drive off an imperialistic bloodthirsty dictatorship that has invaded you, is wildly inapropriate.

well...while technically accurate i'm willing to bet you knew what i meant :P

i will accept the submission of an alternative term ("gung-ho nationalism" maybe ?) or shall we just settle on colloquial usage and leave it at that ? :)

to the British national psyche the Falklands basically means this: we can (possibly) stop a shitty South American country invading a tiny island. go us !

Helmholtz Watson:
When it suits them they support the idea, but when they feel it doesn't, apparently they declare that they'll "resist Scottish independence with everything we've got".

Scots will be voting on independence in 2014. Right now, it doesn't look as if that vote will come back with a yes, but if it does David Cameron's opinions on the issue will mean all of nothing. This is a two sided political debate, and David Cameron is perfectly entitled to advance his political opinion using the democratic process.

I know much of the information people oversees have on this issue probably comes from watching Braveheart, but the modern Union is not maintained by force of arms. There are Unionist parties in Scotland and right now it looks as if they're going to come out on top of the debate, if that ever changes then Scotland will be independent at some point in the future. Considering Scotland has its own parliament and its own political process as well as being represented in the UK parliament, there's already a fair degree of political autonomy there.

The same is also true of Northern Ireland, albeit the situation is much more complicated because the two sides are much more divided. Nonetheless, the majority of the country supports the Union. Recently, we had fucking riots in Northern Ireland because the government there decided to remove the union flag from the parliament building on certain days of the week. That's not British people coming over on boats, that's people from Northern Ireland itself who are so militantly committed to remaining in the Union that they routinely murder people over it.

Also, you do know that Argentina was once part of the former Spanish colony of Rio de la Plata, right? Almost all Argentines are descended from Spanish settlers. In fact, the proportion of the Argentine population which identifies as "white European" is only about 4% lower than the UK. This isn't exactly Dances with Wolves.

vonmanstein:
malvinas argentinas

....Falklands Britannia?

I really don't know what you are adding here.

On topic, I think that the British should give the Argentines the Falklands, right after the Argentines give the mainland back to the indigenous people, the yanks give their land back to the native Americans, after they give it back to the Mexicans of course and we ensure that no one in the European Union is living on land that belonged to anybody else. Ever.

Sleekit:
[quote="Blablahb" post="528.400267.16450473"Jingoism is extreme nationalism and a desire to conquer the world. Using it for a defensive war aimed to drive off an imperialistic bloodthirsty dictatorship that has invaded you, is wildly inapropriate.[/quote]well...while technically accurate i'm willing to bet you knew what i meant :P

He's not technically accurate. Jingoism either means a aggressive form of nationalism that advocates belligerent foreign policy; in a more a colloquial sense, just extreme patriotism. What you were talking about could be considered jingoism even by the former sense, as the tabloid and popular British sentiment has no small amount of military fervour.

Vault Citizen:
Neither of your poll options. The Falklands should belong to its people. At this moment in time the islanders wish to remain British and the Argentinian governement need to learn to respect it. Granted we won't give them a choice but it would be nice if they figured it out on their own.

To me that's a no-brainer, being of British nationality is clearly better than having an Argentine one. The point (which I understand but do not agree with) that most Argentines make is that the Falklanders were British to begin with, settlers and what not, with which the UK filled the islands. Asking them what they want to do about it is like asking the British themselves.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked