• 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.

Falklands 'will be under our control in 20 years', says Argentine foreign minister.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Vyrance

Member
Clearly, there will never be peace as long as Britain or Argentina claims ownership of the Falklands. The only viable solution is for the United States to take control.
 

Patryn

Member
English-speaking forum takes English-speaking side.

I would have never guessed it.

Then, praytell, what exactly is the legal justification for Argentina taking control of an island that they have never controlled, against the wishes of the population living there?
 
Aside from anything else, after 82 the Falklands has become more or less the most well defended rock in the southern hermisphere. It has a proper runway, 4 of the most advanced fighters jets in the world, and more squaddies than a brothel on a trip into port. Meanwhile, the Argentinian military has been forced to cut back due to financial realities. In 82, the distance from the UK really evened the odds to the point where the Task Force sent from Europe only just about won - we just didn't have the power projection capabilities to do a mission like that for much longer. Nowadays the Falklands is a pretty significantly armed area in its own right, and we now have planes that can conduct missions from Ascension Islands. The RAF base on the Falklands knows more about what's going on in Argentinian air space than the Argentinians do, or so I understand. It really is a non-issue, it's just annoying that it makes some people's lives harder because they have to pretend they haven't docked there (or whatever).
 

Kurtofan

Member
English-speaking forum takes English-speaking side.

I would have never guessed it.

I'm not English and I don't see how Argentina is in the right.

Why does the Argentinian government has the right to take islands it never controlled, inhabited by British people since hundreds of years.

I'm French and we were the first one to colonize the islands, we give them the Malvinas name(Malouines in French), yet that doesn't give us the right to have them, same for Argentina even if Spain used to control the islands.
 
English-speaking forum takes English-speaking side.

I would have never guessed it.

Don't think this has anything to do with it to be honest. They have a vote coming up soon AFAIK and we can pretty sure they will vote to remain British putting an end to any and all possibility of them joining Argentina. When Argentina invaded before they effectively made sure the British flag would remain in place.
 
Past settlement from Spain

The claim Argentina had legal rights from Spain upon independence

Britain's historic meddling in not only Argentina but Latin America as a whole.

Sure, Argentina's leadership have used the dispute to stir up nationalistic passion at home before, but to say Argentina has absolutely no legal basis at all is silly. The issue is 200 years old and didn't just start in 1982.
 
"I don't have to persuade them. The United Nations says there is a conflict between the United Kingdom and Argentina. I don't have to persuade anybody. We have to apply international law and accept the resolutions; if not the UN becomes a body that is only useful when it backs the powerful," he said.

That's it, ignore the sovereign rights of the citizens living in the disputed zone!

Keep winning those hearts and minds, Argentina.
 

massoluk

Banned
Past settlement from Spain

The claim Argentina had legal rights from Spain upon independence

Britain's historic meddling in not only Argentina but Latin America as a whole.

Sure, Argentina's leadership have used the dispute to stir up nationalistic passion at home before, but to say Argentina has absolutely no legal basis at all is silly. The issue is 200 years old and didn't just start in 1982.

I'm still trying to determine how exactly does declaring independence entitled you to another piece of land owned by your former ruler.
 
Past settlement from Spain

The claim Argentina had legal rights from Spain upon independence

Britain's historic meddling in not only Argentina but Latin America as a whole.

Sure, Argentina's leadership have used the dispute to stir up nationalistic passion at home before, but to say Argentina has absolutely no legal basis at all is silly. The issue is 200 years old and didn't just start in 1982.

Argentina won't have any say in the matter. The UN charter dictates that they have right to choose how they are governed and in this case they will likely choose to keep ties with Britain. That's all there is to it.
 

Manu

Member
As an Argentinian myself, hearing this assholes saying such stupid stuff makes me wanna cry. We're a laughing stock, we don't have an army... Fuck it, our ships sink while harbored and our planes (the ones that can still take off) are more than 30 years old. If Chile or Brasil wanted to, they could conquer us without blinking an eye. We can't intimidate anybody, and the other countries know that.


Spot-on. It's a smoke screen, used to distract the population from the ever increasing insecurity, inflation (more than 25% per year), foreign currency restrictions, non-payment or underpayment of retirement pensions, political corruption and complete isolation from the world. We've already seen this story before, and it didn't end well.

Damn, anyone who saw our president's speech in Harvard last September surely realised what kind of woman she is. If you haven't, I can link a video here, and translate it for you (as they don't have English subtitles). I fear for the future of this country, if we as a society don't realise we may be heading into a civil war, rate we are going.


More than I can bear. What happened with the Libertad frigate in Ghana is inexcusable, and in a serious country the politicians responsible would have resigned immediately. Of course, here the answer is to blame the "vulture funds" and try to make the president and her lackeys look like martyrs or heroes.

As a fellow Argentinian I can only say: thank you so much for this. You nailed it.
 
It's the only part of what could charitably be referred to as British land where we have penguins. Fuck off is anyone else having it!
 

dalin80

Banned
Past settlement from Spain

The claim Argentina had legal rights from Spain upon independence

.


It was recognized British territory by both France and Spain before what is present day Argentina was even colonised or declared a country.

The Falklanders have a larger right to claim Argentina then the other way round.
 

TCRS

Banned
send the gunboats

daring-sea-trials2.jpg
 

Enkidu

Member
Past settlement from Spain

The claim Argentina had legal rights from Spain upon independence

Britain's historic meddling in not only Argentina but Latin America as a whole.

Sure, Argentina's leadership have used the dispute to stir up nationalistic passion at home before, but to say Argentina has absolutely no legal basis at all is silly. The issue is 200 years old and didn't just start in 1982.
Argentina is not a successor state to Spain. Just because they rebelled from them doesn't mean they get to claim any old Spanish territory. Otherwise almost all of Latin America would claim each others territory, not to mention that the US would have solid grounds to claim Canada.
 
It was recognized British territory by both France and Spain before what is present day Argentina was even colonised or declared a country.

The Falklanders have a larger right to claim Argentina then the other way round.

That's inacurate because there were both Spanish and British settlements at that time so Spain couldn't have recognized ownership to its major colonial rival/adversary at the time. Argentina gained independence before Britain was able to (re)gain a military foothold on the islands.

As for the other statement... lol. This is NeoGAF, I gather.
 

dalin80

Banned
Yep sent a few months ago, the other Type 45 is in the gulf.

Edit: i stand corrected, wonder if we are sending anything down there to replace it.



There is always one frigate or destroyer on duty there, and often a couple of other ships such as a OPV and ice breaker. Rumour mill has one of the SSN's there as well.
 

genjiZERO

Member
Past settlement from Spain

The claim Argentina had legal rights from Spain upon independence

Britain's historic meddling in not only Argentina but Latin America as a whole.

Sure, Argentina's leadership have used the dispute to stir up nationalistic passion at home before, but to say Argentina has absolutely no legal basis at all is silly. The issue is 200 years old and didn't just start in 1982.

First, there was no Spanish settlement in the Falklands. There was a garrison composed of Spanish speaking people, but it was put in place by a French/German privateer under the authority of both the colonial Spanish government and the British. Furthermore, it was established after the British claimed the island.

Second, every time this subject comes up there is some insinuation that the British in South America is illegitimate colonialism, but somehow the Spanish were never colonisers or somehow their colonialisation in South America is more legitimate. This makes no sense. The Spanish are as foreign to South America as the British are. This is particularly true for Argentina who has one of the lowest Mestizo or Indigenous populations in South America. Consequently, Argentineans are just as much "meddlers" in South America as the British are.

Third, you are right it does go back 200 years. It goes back to 1833 when the British establish complete sovereignty, and 1840 when a permanent colony was established.
 

dalin80

Banned
That's inacurate because there were both Spanish and British settlements at that time so Spain couldn't have recognized ownership to its major colonial rival/adversary at the time. Argentina gained independence before Britain was able to (re)gain a military foothold on the islands.

As for the other statement... lol. This is NeoGAF, I gather.


It was still recognized British territory, and the reasons for duel ownerships at some small points was that there is two main islands.
 

Lonely1

Unconfirmed Member
Argentina is not a successor state to Spain. Just because they rebelled from them doesn't mean they get to claim any old Spanish territory. Otherwise almost all of Latin America would claim each others territory, not to mention that the US would have solid grounds to claim Canada.

Um, they all tried.
 

Enkidu

Member
Um, they all tried.
Sure, of course they tried and there are all sorts of small remnants of uncertain borders as usually happens with colonies. But that doesn't mean anyone would recognize an Argentinian claim on Chile as anything but senseless jingoism today, and it is no different with the Falklands really.
 

Ikael

Member
Now, now, there's no need to argue over such a silly thing. Just hand these islands back to Spain and problem solv... *independentist movement starts in the Falklands* ...not this shit again >.<

I swear, I can't hear CFK talk without cringing. *SNIP*

You alone have made more to improve the image that I have of the Argentinians than one thousand idiotic campora boot-lickers. Would Argentina have more citizens like you, it would be able to get out of its situation, so keep on the good fight! :D

Also, while CFK is embarrasing, Kicilloff is the stuff of nightmares. Shady third-rate Rasputin *shudders*
 

jett

D-Member
Politician trying to score points with the plebs. The Falklands seems like a ridiculous claim from Argentina. It's been under English rule for over 150 years. The fuck are you trying to do?
 

ChapaNDJ

Banned
They have become an excuse to bait the population when shit goes bad at Buenos Aires. Kirchner has seen better days, so it's time to bring that up again.

This!
It has been always a smoke screen when things go wrong in this country.
I as argentine support Falklands right to self-determination. To our government, its time to leave the islanders live their life in peace and let them choose what they want to be.

Simple as that.
 
First, there was no Spanish settlement in the Falklands. There was a garrison composed of Spanish speaking people, but it was put in place by a French/German privateer under the authority of both the colonial Spanish government and the British. Furthermore, it was established after the British claimed the island.

First, you're only describing one colony among many with various powers colonizing and then leaving. It certainly doesn't explain how the Brits gained a permanent hold of what we now know as the Falkland Islands.

Second, the Brits established what is now the Falklands islands by kicking out the Argentinians through military force. Then British colonization began and the descendants of those people are still there today.

Third and a bit of a side point, soldiers are not anymore illegitimate than, say, goat herders otherwise Russia and Canada would lose a lot of their claims in their distant outposts populated by either by scientists, soldiers or miners.

Second, every time this subject comes up there is some insinuation that the British in South America is illegitimate colonialism, but somehow the Spanish were never colonisers or somehow their colonialisation in South America is more legitimate. This makes no sense. The Spanish are as foreign to South America as the British are. This is particularly true for Argentina who has one of the lowest Mestizo or Indigenous populations in South America. Consequently, Argentineans are just as much "meddlers" in South America as the British are.

Both were colonizers, but Spain along with Portugal really colonize the place while the Brits remained at the peripheries as a spoiler for Spain. Brits remained a spoiler and further played the empire game even after Spain (and Portugal) retreated.

Of course, all were ruthless in their colonization efforts, but excuse me if I take the locals more seriously than the UK via their numerous overseas outposts.

Third, you are right it does go back 200 years. It goes back to 1833 when the British establish complete sovereignty, and 1840 when a permanent colony was established.

You must be fun in those Tibet and Israel threads.
 

diamount

Banned
Let's not beat around the bush. If oil wasn't found then nobody would give a shit about some little island backwater.
 

Phoenix

Member
3000 people? why dont they just have a bunch of Argentinians immigrate there and change the demographic?

The Falklands doesn't really support that many more people. Its a mystery to me why anyone would want to fight for it...
 
Strategic outpost for what?

It's near the strait of Magellan where the Atlantic and Pacific meet. It's better to actually control Argentina, but the Falklands are still nearby and not a bad consolation price. Britain was already a huge naval power at the time.

It's of similar strategic importance as South Africa (where the Atlantic and Indian oceans meet) and why Britain went to great and bloody lenghts to conquer that as well.
 

ChapaNDJ

Banned
It's near the strait of Magellan where the Atlantic and Pacific meet. It's better to actually control Argentina, but the Falklands are still nearby.

It's of similar strategic importance as South Africa (where the Atlantic and Indian oceans meet) and why Britain went to great and bloody lenghts to conquer that as well.

Do you really think there will be another war?
Lol, we can barely keep our railroads working, not to mention that our FFAA has been disbanded.
 

BigDes

Member
What about the locals on the island who overwhelmingly want to stay under British control

Do they not get a choice in the matter?
 

genjiZERO

Member
First, you're only describing one colony among many with various powers colonizing and then leaving. It certainly doesn't explain how the Brits gained a permanent hold of what we now know as the Falkland Islands.

Second, the Brits established what is now the Falklands islands by kicking out the Argentinians through military force. Then British colonization began and the descendants of those people are still there today.

Third and a bit of a side point, soldiers are not anymore illegitimate than, say, goat herders otherwise Russia and Canada would lose a lot of their claims in their distant outposts populated by either by scientists, soldiers or miners.

I doesn't matter, Britain, Spain and France were all "vying" (which is in quotes because no one really seemed to care about it until the nineteenth century) for it at the same time. The British claim goes back just as far as the Spanish one does. And again, Spain =/= Argentina.

Also, no a garrison is not a legitimate settlement. It doesn't show an intent to stay and develop a land. And anyway even if it was, it was a private French settlement, not an Argentinean one. The fact the mercenaries who made up the garrison were from Argentina doesn't make it Argentinian. You could argue that it was done under the authority of the Spanish so it would make it Spanish. But it was also done under the authority of the British so that makes it at least British as well. Finally, and again, the "Argentineans" weren't kicked out. A garrison comprised of Spanish soldiers hired by a private Frenchman were kicked out of an island previously claimed by the British.


Both were colonizers, but Spain along with Portugal really colonize the place while the Brits remained at the peripheries as a spoiler for Spain. Brits remained a spoiler and further played the empire game even after Spain (and Portugal) retreated.

Of course, all were ruthless in their colonization efforts, but excuse me if I take the locals more seriously than the UK via their numerous overseas outposts.

I'm not trying to be a dick, but that's plainly ignorant. For one, North America, Australia and most of the Caribbean say hi as places that aren't "overseas outposts". For another, honestly it makes no sense at all. What does any of that have to do with the absurdity that British colonialism of South America is illegitimate, but Spanish colonialism isn't?

You must be fun in those Tibet and Israel threads.

Um what? Tibetans are a subjugated people. Israel actively suppresses and illegally takes land from Palestinians. What does this have to do with the Falklands? There are no Argentineans being subjugated, suppressed and no land has been illegally taken. Again, the British have held claim to the Falklands before Argentina was a sovereign nation. Consequently, it's the Argentineans who are acting like the agressors in this situation.
 
Do you really think there will be another war?
Lol, we can barely keep our railroads working, not to mention that our FFAA has been disbanded.

Not for a second.

What about the locals on the island who overwhelmingly want to stay under British control

Do they not get a choice in the matter?

The UK wants to push that angle only because they'd know they'd win that referendum. Although I am not sure if Falklands count legally as an entity that can decide its own future. Probably not so the referendum would be symbolic rather than legally binding.

Of course, they never asked the people of Hong Kong what they thought when they negotiated with China over the retrocession.
 

ChapaNDJ

Banned
Not for a second..

My point exactly.
Nothing to control since there's no military power in the country and/or that part of the region.

Any decent person who believes in self-determination must respect the islanders's decision and that is the end of it all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom