• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Argentines seek peaceful resolution in Falklands, Brits says its settled.

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Garret

Member
The sheer lack of knowledge regarding Public International Law on GAF seems astonishing to me. Everything resides on an old Roman principle: uti possidetis, ita possideatis (what you owned, you will own). The islands belonged to Spain, the Virreinato del Río de la Plata belonged to Spain. The Virreinato became Argentina, with time, and everything that belonged to it (that did not become its own nation on its own right and merit) belonged to Argentina.

In 1825, the UK signed a friendship treaty with Argentina, thus recognizing Argentina as a country. You cannot recognize a country without recognizing it in its entirety. Or, at least, in a worst case scenario, you should expressly state that you're not recognizing it entirely.

During the 19th century, crooked Juan Manuel de Rosas tried paying Rivadavia's debt with the Baring Bros. by offering the Malvinas. The Baring Bros. did not accept them as payment. Now again, how can you offer something which you do not own?

And about the inhabitants. They talk about their right to self-determination and blah, blah, blah. They're not the original inhabitants of the islands because there were no original inhabitants at all. Therefore, that right does not apply to them. They're just British people brought there to populate the islands. I don't think the UK would like me to go to their country, start having kids, and in a few years have me at the Parliament claiming that a part of the UK is a different country, and that it belongs to me and my descendants...
 
M

Meadows

Banned
The UN recognises it at British.

End of discussion. We have all of the oil and Argentina doesn't. Perks of being the greatest maritime nation in history. *shrug*
 
Z

zomgbbqftw

Banned
Garret said:
The sheer lack of knowledge regarding Public International Law on GAF seems astonishing to me. Everything resides on an old Roman principle: uti possidetis, ita possideatis (what you owned, you will own). The islands belonged to Spain, the Virreinato del Río de la Plata belonged to Spain. The Virreinato became Argentina, with time, and everything that belonged to it (that did not become its own nation on its own right and merit) belonged to Argentina.

In 1825, the UK signed a friendship treaty with Argentina, thus recognizing Argentina as a country. You cannot recognize a country without recognizing it in its entirety. Or, at least, in a worst case scenario, you should expressly state that you're not recognizing it entirely.

During the 19th century, crooked Juan Manuel de Rosas tried paying Rivadavia's debt with the Baring Bros. by offering the Malvinas. The Baring Bros. did not accept them as payment. Now again, how can you offer something which you do not own?

And about the inhabitants. They talk about their right to self-determination and blah, blah, blah. They're not the original inhabitants of the islands because there were no original inhabitants at all. Therefore, that right does not apply to them. They're just British people brought there to populate the islands. I don't think the UK would like me to go to their country, start having kids, and in a few years have me at the Parliament claiming that a part of the UK is a different country, and that it belongs to me and my descendants...
Click to expand...

Easily. I offer Buckingham Palace if I'm wrong.
 
Z

zomgbbqftw

Banned
Garret said:
We shall resolve this with a race across the world! It will start at Green Park and will end at Auckland. To up the stakes, I up it by offering la Casa Rosada.
Click to expand...

Can we start on Monday, the Victoria Line is off today, and it's too cold to go to Green Park. D:
 
G

Guerrillas in the Mist

Member
It's funny to see Argentinians talking about "imperialism" when the majority of them, and certainly most of those in politics, are mostly descended from European settlers, who took land at the expense of the indigenous population.
 
X

X05

Upside, inside out he's livin la vida loca, He'll push and pull you down, livin la vida loca
Fersis said:
Does anyone actually believes that we will declare war? We have a democratic competent non drunk ruled government now.

This is jut an awful reminder of a dark past.
Click to expand...
:lol

frankie_baby said:
Argentina has never actually ruled the falklands and historically has a better claim to uruguay than they have to the islands, the people there want to remain british, case closed
Click to expand...
Argentina has no claim over us, as much as they enjoy calling us a province.

frankie_baby said:
Yeah I know shell and bp will probably get most of the drilling contracts, I'm just saying any refinerys they have to build because of this should be in Chile and Uruguay just to give a fuck you to Argentina
Click to expand...
Not happening, considering that our government likes to claim "solidarity" with Argentina
despite the fact that they have no qualms over screwing us any chance they get
 
Z

zomgbbqftw

Banned
X05 said:
:lol


Argentina has no claim over us, as much as they enjoy calling us a province.


Not happening, considering that our government likes to claim "solidarity" with Argentina
despite the fact that they have no qualms over screwing us any chance they get
Click to expand...

Wow, do you live in the FI?

Garret said:
Can you just take the Piccadilly Line? Or is that exit closed as well?
Click to expand...

Too slow, and I have to get to Turnpike Lane by bus then, plus someone got shot there a couple of days ago, so I don't really want to go there.
 
G

Guerrillas in the Mist

Member
shinobi602 said:
I don't see what business Britain has in some islands 10,000 miles away, but maybe I'm just too simplistic in my thinking.
Click to expand...

See it from this perspective. There's an island half the world away from the United States. It was uninhabited until Americans settled there 150 or so years ago, and the population largely consider themselves American and many are descended from those settlers. A nearby country declares that the island is rightfully theirs, despite all of the population wanting to remain American. How would you feel about it?
 
K

killer_clank

Member
shinobi602 said:
I don't see what business Britain has in some islands 10,000 miles away, but maybe I'm just too simplistic in my thinking.
Click to expand...

shells of the empire basically. but the people there have never wanted to be independent or part of argentina and until they decide otherwise argentina has no claim.
 
S

Shepard

Member
Bo-Locks said:
Many of the immigrants have been there for 5+ generations. Much longer than a lot of the Argentine population.

Geography is also irrelevant. Should the French be allowed to claim the Channel Islands simply because they're closer to France? Should the Spanish be allowed to claim Gibraltar as their own?

Argentina has no case whatsoever.

Ironically, the only correct part of your post was the use of inverted commas around the word 'immigrants'.
Click to expand...
That's a nice, if a little too straightforward, way of thinking. I'm ok with you having this opinion, but you really should broaden your view.
 
C

CrazyDude

Member
Guerrillas in the Mist said:
See it from this perspective. There's an island half the world away from the United States. It was uninhabited until Americans settled there 150 or so years ago, and the population largely consider themselves American and many are descended from those settlers. A nearby country declares that the island is rightfully theirs, despite all of the population wanting to remain American. How would you feel about it?
Click to expand...

Well Hawaii can be considered that.
 
S

shinobi602

Member
Guerrillas in the Mist said:
See it from this perspective. There's an island half the world away from the United States. It was uninhabited until Americans settled there 150 or so years ago, and the population largely consider themselves American and many are descended from those settlers. A nearby country declares that the island is rightfully theirs, despite all of the population wanting to remain American. How would you feel about it?
Click to expand...

Ok, granted. I would agree, if the population wants to be a part of Britain, sure.

About Hawaii though, correct if I'm wrong, but weren't there indigenous people there when we arrived? What course of actions occurred afterwards? Were they asked peacefully to become a part of the United States?

Or were they subjugated like the Native Americans and we took all their shit anyway after killing them? Genuine questions, I'm not sure on the history of Hawaii.
 
I

IceCold

Member
JJD said:
Huh? We have been speaking portuguese since we were discovered. The indian population here was not numerous, and really fragmented. The portuguese didn't have a problem dealing with most of then, outside a few very aggressive tribes. Most brazilian indians spoke a variation of Guarani.

The indigenous population of the rest of Latin America (such as the Incas), and Central America (Aztecs) where much more advanced.



Also this.
Click to expand...

Yeah I know, but wasn't Portuguese only widely spoken during the 19th century? Maybe I'm wrong. Wikipedia has this to say:

"Nos primeiros anos de colonização, as línguas indígenas eram faladas inclusive pelos colonos portugueses, que adotaram um idioma misto baseado na língua tupi. Por ser falada por quase todos os habitantes do Brasil, ficou conhecida como língua geral. Todavia, no século XVIII, a língua portuguesa tornou-se oficial do Brasil, o que culminou no quase desaparecimento dessa língua comum."
 
C

CrazyDude

Member
shinobi602 said:
Ok, granted. I would agree, if the population wants to be a part of Britain, sure.

About Hawaii though, correct if I'm wrong, but weren't there indigenous people there when we arrived? What course of actions occurred afterwards? Were they asked peacefully to become a part of the United States?
Click to expand...

No, they were basically forced to be part of the u.s. They didn't have much of choice.

zomgbbqftw said:
Hawaii wasn't uninhabited. :/
Click to expand...

Yeah, misread the post. Didn't read the uninhabited part.
 
B

Bo-Locks

Member
Shepard said:
That's a nice, if a little too straightforward, way of thinking. I'm ok with you having this opinion, but you really should broaden your view.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but I still think that geography has absolutely nothing to do with the dispute. I think that Garret's point about the transfer of ownership from the Spanish is a slightly more solid point. If I were you, I would focus my arguments on the latter point and drop the arguments about the geography, because they simply don't appeal to me.
 
G

genjiZERO

Member
Garret said:
The sheer lack of knowledge regarding Public International Law on GAF seems astonishing to me. Everything resides on an old Roman principle: uti possidetis, ita possideatis (what you owned, you will own). The islands belonged to Spain, the Virreinato del Río de la Plata belonged to Spain. The Virreinato became Argentina, with time, and everything that belonged to it (that did not become its own nation on its own right and merit) belonged to Argentina.
Click to expand...

Under what international treaty is this at all valid? Under this logic all territory must return to it's "original" owners regardless of who they are. If that's the case then Argentina itself should return to the indigenous populations. They owned, so they should own it again right? If you say Spain was a conqueror so they lost this right, then precisely the same thing happened between Spain and Britain - Britain conquered the islands. Argentina may have dominion over territory that was part of its Spanish controlled area, but the Falkland Islands are not part of this because they were previously conquered and annexed by Britain.
 
G

genjiZERO

Member
Log4Girlz said:
The only international law i'm familiar with is "Might makes right". You have more guns, you make the rules.
Click to expand...

there's a lot of validity to international law. The WTO is pretty strong. But yeah, territory disputes.... gimme a break... it's seriously about the guns.
 
L

Log4Girlz

Member
genjiZERO said:
there's a lot of validity to international law. The WTO is pretty strong. But yeah, territory disputes.... gimme a break... it's seriously about the guns.
Click to expand...

If I remember correctly there was even talk of using nuclear weapons against argentina. Anyone can correct me if they wish.
 
J

JonnyBrad

Member
My uncle served in the Falklands and knew people who died defending them.

The Islands are British until the Falklands citizens decide they don't want them to be.
 
P

ProfessorMoran

Member
Ripclawe said:
Damn right it is and you ain't getting the oil.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/10077158




_58193693_45151269.jpg
Click to expand...

Argentina has no leverage whatsoever and needs to GTFO, end of story. Maybe they could give the Brits Lionel Messi in exchange.
 
B

Boney

Banned
zomgbbqftw said:
To sum up the history of the Falklands:

Before 1500's the FI are uninhabited, Argentina doesn't exist as a nation.
In the 1700's British settlers move in and FI's recognised as a British colony, Argentina still doesn't exist as a nation.
In the 1800's Britain recognises Argentina as a free and independent nation to irritate the Spanish.
In 1982, Argentina unilaterally invade the Falklands to hide economic failures of the government, after a short war Argentinian forces are repelled and forced back. They leave thousands of land mines on their way back.
In 2011 Argentina try and ratchet up the pressure again to cover up more economic failures by the government and hold up the leader's ratings.

Where in that list does Argentina have any claim on the Falklands other than being nearby?



Oil. Lots of it.
Click to expand...

The process if incorporating the argentian government would've ideally happened in the late 1800's, but it's impossible to ask for a South American country to have any sort of leverage, at that time and now. As to why would there be such a switch if British have been there first, well, I view it as a pretty huge mark in colonialism. Just like Chile is in control of the eastern islands.

Of course, there's nothing to do now, history and culture have run it's course and it's their land, and all these talk are just political agendas to get support from the people. Similar to Peru and Bolivia and the sea limit stuff.
 
B

Bo-Locks

Member
StuKen said:
Why would anyone be annoyed with the sinking given it was outside the exclusion zone and moving away. Nah can't think of anything other than pure unadulterated jingoisim. Britons would never be gully of anything like that would they.
Click to expand...

From Wiki:

Admiral Enrique Molina Pico, head of the Argentine Navy in the 1990s, wrote in a letter to La Nación, published in the 2 May 2005 edition,[26] that the Belgrano was part of an operation that posed a real threat to the British task force, that it was holding off for tactical reasons, and that being outside of the exclusion zone was unimportant as it was a warship on tactical mission. This is the official position of the Argentine Navy.
Click to expand...

In late 2011, David Thorp, a former military intelligence officer who led the signals intercept team aboard the HMS Intrepid, released the book The Silent Listener detailing the role of intelligence in the Falklands War. The book revealed that despite the fact that the Belgrano was observed by the Conqueror sailing away from the Falklands at the time of the attack, it had actually been ordered to proceed to a rendezvous point within the Exclusion Zone, to engage in a pincer attack.[34][35] A report prepared by Thorp for Thatcher several months after the incident stated the destination of the vessel was not to her home port as the Argentine Junta stated, but was not released because the Prime Minister did not want to compromise British signals intelligence capabilities.
Click to expand...

Though the ship was outside the 200-mile (370 km) exclusion zone, both sides understood that this was no longer the limit of British action—on 23 April a message was passed via the Swiss Embassy in Buenos Aires to the Argentine government, it read:
In announcing the establishment of a Maritime Exclusion Zone around the Falkland Islands, Her Majesty's Government made it clear that this measure was without prejudice to the right of the United Kingdom to take whatever additional measures may be needed in the exercise of its right of self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. In this connection Her Majesty's Government now wishes to make clear that any approach on the part of Argentine warships, including submarines, naval auxiliaries or military aircraft, which could amount to a threat to interfere with the mission of British Forces in the South Atlantic will encounter the appropriate response. All Argentine aircraft, including civil aircraft engaged in surveillance of these British forces, will be regarded as hostile and are liable to be dealt with accordingly.[18]
Interviews conducted by Martin Middlebrook for his book, The Fight For The Malvinas, indicated that Argentine Naval officers understood the intent of the message was to indicate that any ships operating near the exclusion zone could be attacked. Argentine Rear Admiral Allara, who was in charge of the task force that the Belgrano was part of, said "After that message of 23 April, the entire South Atlantic was an operational theatre for both sides. We, as professionals, said it was just too bad that we lost the Belgrano[
Click to expand...

The sinking of the Belgrano is just another topic for pissy Argentines to garner sympathy and whatever else they can get from their partners. Everybody accepts that the sinking of the Belgrano was a fully justified military operation. The concept of an exclusion zone does not dictate that the theatre of war is contained within the aforementioned boundaries. This is clearly outlined in the statement above and was shown to be understood by the military Junta. This was a legal, fully justified attack, the Junta knew it and the current Argentinian government knows it, they're simply using it as a political tool which is rather despicable in my opinion. It was sunk by a superior vessel. The end.

The British fought the entire Falklands war in the best possible way. It's the way that wars should be fought (if they have to, of course). The war was entirely contained within the Islands themselves and the waters surrounding them, there were no attacks on the Argentine mainland (even though attacks against legitimate military targets could have been justified) and it was a fairly short war in which the superior force expelled the opposing force. There was very little superfluous bullshit involved. Exceptions to this however, include the 100+ minefields laid by the Argentines which remain to this day and the multitude of economic blocks that Argentina has forced upon the Falkland Islanders, and yet the current Argentine government still tries to claim the moral high ground based on the unprovoked actions of a Military Junta with a complete lack of any historical claim to the Islands in any way whatsoever.

It's as sickening as it is disheartening to see that democracy has had so very little effect on the political and social landscape of Argentina after nearly 30 years.
 
T

twobear

sputum-flecked apoplexy
i'd want them to stay in british control if i thought that the money made from the oil would help people in the uk rather than just oil companies
 
D

dalin80

Banned
iNvidious01 said:
KuGsj.gif
Click to expand...


***PURELY THEORETICAL***

*Iam not condoning war or sabre rattling, purely looking at numbers*

The dauntless as a type 45 destroyer is capable of tracking upto 1000 targets at a range of 400km and is fitted with 48 anti-air sea viper missiles with ranges of either upto 30km for aster 15's or 210km for aster 30's.

The argentine air force has ~63 aircraft.*

So no, the article should read track from take off and presuming a 1-hit/1-kill ratio capable of destroying upto 2/3rds or the air force.

This doesnt include any contribution from any other british military resource which is currently probably only a nuclear sub or two and the small squadron of typhoons stationed there.

*Continued rumours of a least a significant portion of these are not air worthy at any particular time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
The tragedy of Argentina, A century of decline
2
62
12K
Elchele replied
  • Locked
Argentina Judge orders seizure of Oil Firm's assets drilling around Falkland Islands
2
93
11K
dead monkey uk replied
67 Environmental Rules on the Way Out Under Trump
2
98
9K
GrizzleBoy replied
  • Locked
Bill O'Reilly Has Had His Brian Williams Moment Says New Mother Jones Report
2
83
13K
JeanGrey replied
  • Locked
Falklands 'will be under our control in 20 years', says Argentine foreign minister.
2 3
122
11K
Exterminieren replied
Top Bottom