Falkland islands protest outside Brit embassy in BA

[SD_Film Artists]

'sounds too much like appeasement. Why give parts of the Falklands to a country who tried to invade us [Argentina] when we could give it to a nation which hasn't? Say...Georgia. Not that it makes any sense giving it to Georgia, but it makes much more sense than Argentina.

Hardly.

The Argentines tried and failed to get them back, so now they ask nicely, and Britain will give them back if they invest in the island and protect the islander in a way that Britain cannot.

Hardly what?

As I and others have said before, Argentina might have had a chance of getting them because even though it makes no sense to give the islands to them, the British public may have still given the islands to them because of anti-colonial sentiment; but Argentina missed that bus when they invaded the islands, turning the Falklands into a symbol of British pride, being Britain's the only truly defensive war since WW2. And nice use of "back", as if Britain is holding something of Argentine property...

And even if Argentina didn't invade and Britain did give them the Falklands despite all logic, that still doesn't account for the right to self-determination, the Falklanders being British and wanting to stay British.

[Cromarty]

In 1947, 1948 and 1955 the UK offered to take the dispute to the International Court of Justice for mediation. Each time Argentina refused.

As the British were wanting to save face by some daft idea simmilar to Hong Kong, while the Argentines just wanted the islands back.

Actually we couldn't afford to keep them at the time and wanted rid of them.

Argentina refused, and with the invasion in '82 lost any chance of getting the islands peacefully, and should they invade, Britain will move to protect it's territory.

[Malgrave]

As the British were wanting to save face by some daft idea simmilar to Hong Kong, while the Argentines just wanted the islands back.

Actually we couldn't afford to keep them at the time and wanted rid of them.

Argentina refused, and with the invasion in '82 lost any chance of getting the islands peacefully, and should they invade, Britain will move to protect it's territory.

I think the defence of the Falkland Islands is the only thing our parliament can agree on at the moment they can't even agree on chocolate oranges anymore

[Machtergreifung]

It doesnt need to be that extreme. If Argentina stopped the flights from BA, it kills tourism, and if they send tarrifs on Falkland products sky-high, its economic ruin for the island.

True, but it would still be wrong for Argentina to do it. The US could ruin the Canadian economy with similar measures, but that does not make it right. And the US has just as much if not more claim to Canada.

To counteract this, the British should try to better develop the Falkland economy, make it more self-sufficient, and increase trade links between the Falklands and South Africa and Chile.

These irredentist based claims that are causing much global instability are utterly ridiculous and dangerous. Imagine if all the European countries tried to reclaim every piece of land they or their predecessors once controlled.

Argentina has no legitimate claim at all. Even if they did once control it, that still gives them no right to reclaim it. Claiming a historical right is even less legitimate (multiple states and groups can claim a similar conflicting right to any piece of land in the world, so EVERY border would be in dispute), and the Argentine claim is dubious at best. If everyone followed the Argentine example of arbitrarily claiming nearby land the world would be in dire straits. The Argentinians sound like Stalin, Mussolini or Adolf Hitler (or the PRC). Such behavior is no longer acceptable in the modern world.

Argentina has a perfectly legitimate claim, as strong as that of pre-decolonialization Kenya or Zimbabwe. The islands have and will remain to have far stronger ties to Argentina than Britian. If Britain was to suddenly cut all contact with the islands, they would get by. If Argentina done the same, the islands would collapse.

The main problem really is that Britain hasn't developed the Falklands. They still depend on Argentine ports and air services for the majority of trade, and why go to South Africa for trade when there is a perfect partner a few hundred miles away that you can win over with some form of agreement to return the islands if Britain can get down of its colonial high horse.

[Machtergreifung]

Hardly.

The Argentines tried and failed to get them back, so now they ask nicely, and Britain will give them back if they invest in the island and protect the islander in a way that Britain cannot.

Hardly what?

As I and others have said before, Argentina might have had a chance of getting them because even though it makes no sense to give the islands to them, the British public may have still given the islands to them because of anti-colonial sentiment; but Argentina missed that bus when they invaded the islands, turning the Falklands into a symbol of British pride, being Britain's the only truly defensive war since WW2. And nice use of "back", as if Britain is holding something of Argentine property...

And even if Argentina didn't invade and Britain did give them the Falklands despite all logic, that still doesn't account for the right to self-determination, the Falklanders being British and wanting to stay British.

Give it ten years until the entire island is dependant economicaly on Argentina for a workforce and import/export.

Hardly.

The Argentines tried and failed to get them back, so now they ask nicely, and Britain will give them back if they invest in the island and protect the islander in a way that Britain cannot.

Hardly what?

As I and others have said before, Argentina might have had a chance of getting them because even though it makes no sense to give the islands to them, the British public may have still given the islands to them because of anti-colonial sentiment; but Argentina missed that bus when they invaded the islands, turning the Falklands into a symbol of British pride, being Britain's the only truly defensive war since WW2. And nice use of "back", as if Britain is holding something of Argentine property...

And even if Argentina didn't invade and Britain did give them the Falklands despite all logic, that still doesn't account for the right to self-determination, the Falklanders being British and wanting to stay British.

Go look at a map, then read on how the Argentine settlers got turffed off. Then tell me who should own it.

[Caragonia]

As I and others have said before, Argentina might have had a chance of getting them because even though it makes no sense to give the islands to them, the British public may have still given the islands to them because of anti-colonial sentiment; but Argentina missed that bus when they invaded the islands, turning the Falklands into a symbol of British pride, being Britain's the only truly defensive war since WW2. And nice use of "back", as if Britain is holding something of Argentine property...

And even if Argentina didn't invade and Britain did give them the Falklands despite all logic, that still doesn't account for the right to self-determination, the Falklanders being British and wanting to stay British.

Go look at a map, then read on how the Argentine settlers got turffed off. Then tell me who should own it.

So, the USN evicted the Argentinian settlers and that's somehow our fault, and the Argentinians 'inherited' the Spanish claim, which was derived from the French claim after Britain had also claimed the Islands, and we still didn't get there first? Their claim is based on two other countries claims, neither of which are are direct predecessors of modern Argentina, and we're in the wrong?

Somehow, I don't think so.

[Great Agram]

British are so pathetic,they keep that arid island only as a remembrance of their murderer empire.

No we keep it because the people there want to be British.

Because the people there are British and colonists.There is a high bias. The argument is really stupid.

[Unchecked Expansion]

Go look at a map, then read on how the Argentine settlers got turffed off. Then tell me who should own it.

The Argentinian settlers who asked British permission to settle and in fact stayed on the island after Britain reasserted it's claim?
The ones whose descendants want to be British?
You're right, we should listen to them

[SD_Film Artists]

True, but it would still be wrong for Argentina to do it. The US could ruin the Canadian economy with similar measures, but that does not make it right. And the US has just as much if not more claim to Canada.

To counteract this, the British should try to better develop the Falkland economy, make it more self-sufficient, and increase trade links between the Falklands and South Africa and Chile.

These irredentist based claims that are causing much global instability are utterly ridiculous and dangerous. Imagine if all the European countries tried to reclaim every piece of land they or their predecessors once controlled.

Argentina has no legitimate claim at all. Even if they did once control it, that still gives them no right to reclaim it. Claiming a historical right is even less legitimate (multiple states and groups can claim a similar conflicting right to any piece of land in the world, so EVERY border would be in dispute), and the Argentine claim is dubious at best. If everyone followed the Argentine example of arbitrarily claiming nearby land the world would be in dire straits. The Argentinians sound like Stalin, Mussolini or Adolf Hitler (or the PRC). Such behavior is no longer acceptable in the modern world.

Argentina has a perfectly legitimate claim, as strong as that of pre-decolonialization Kenya or Zimbabwe.

How did you come to that conclusion? If anything it's Argentina who is colonial Britain in that example.

The main problem really is that Britain hasn't developed the Falklands. They still depend on Argentine ports and air services for the majority of trade, and why go to South Africa for trade when there is a perfect partner a few hundred miles away that you can win over with some form of agreement to return the islands if Britain can get down of its colonial high horse.

We got off our colonial high horse 60 years ago, it's about time Argentina did too.

[Caragonia]

No we keep it because the people there want to be British.

Because the people there are British and colonists.There is a high bias. The argument is really stupid.

Around 60% self-identify as Falkanders I believe on their census, some are descendents of Danish/Swedish shipwreck survivors, and hell there's even a Chinese migrant section.

[Great Agram]

British are so pathetic,they keep that arid island only as a remembrance of their murderer empire.

You are overreacting, the empire was not murderer at all. Are you insane?


The empire was racist and genodical and the modern day "UK" is the successor.

[Great Agram]

Because the people there are British and colonists.There is a high bias. The argument is really stupid.

Around 60% self-identify as Falkanders I believe on their census, some are descendents of Danish/Swedish shipwreck survivors, and hell there's even a Chinese migrant section.

I dont change the fact that the first Falklanders were british and the other who came followed the "natives"

[Fartsniffage]

The empire was racist and genodical and the modern day "UK" is the successor.

What is your point?

[Fartsniffage]

Around 60% self-identify as Falkanders I believe on their census, some are descendents of Danish/Swedish shipwreck survivors, and hell there's even a Chinese migrant section.

I dont change the fact that the first Falklanders were british and the other who came followed the "natives"

So if the first Falklanders were British, why does Argentina have any claim?

[Caragonia]

British are so pathetic,they keep that arid island only as a remembrance of their murderer empire.

...The empire was racist and genodical and the modern day "UK" is the successor.

Well, the bolded isn't really any different from any nation-state in the world, especially considering one of the things humans are best at is killing each other.

And we were the UK when we had the Empire anyway.

[Great Agram]

Cuando sepan escribir en un lenguaje Español decente , les respondo ,JAJA

Forum here's English, and I write in English.

I know the average english is uneducated and dont know any foreign language.

[SD_Film Artists]

British are so pathetic,they keep that arid island only as a remembrance of their murderer empire.

"murder empire" I'm not pretending that Britain didn't commit war crimes but considering the standards of the era I don't see why we're picked out. We just had the larger empire.

[Malgrave]

True, but it would still be wrong for Argentina to do it. The US could ruin the Canadian economy with similar measures, but that does not make it right. And the US has just as much if not more claim to Canada.

To counteract this, the British should try to better develop the Falkland economy, make it more self-sufficient, and increase trade links between the Falklands and South Africa and Chile.

These irredentist based claims that are causing much global instability are utterly ridiculous and dangerous. Imagine if all the European countries tried to reclaim every piece of land they or their predecessors once controlled.

Argentina has no legitimate claim at all. Even if they did once control it, that still gives them no right to reclaim it. Claiming a historical right is even less legitimate (multiple states and groups can claim a similar conflicting right to any piece of land in the world, so EVERY border would be in dispute), and the Argentine claim is dubious at best. If everyone followed the Argentine example of arbitrarily claiming nearby land the world would be in dire straits. The Argentinians sound like Stalin, Mussolini or Adolf Hitler (or the PRC). Such behavior is no longer acceptable in the modern world.

Argentina has a perfectly legitimate claim, as strong as that of pre-decolonialization Kenya or Zimbabwe. The islands have and will remain to have far stronger ties to Argentina than Britian. If Britain was to suddenly cut all contact with the islands, they would get by. If Argentina done the same, the islands would collapse.

The main problem really is that Britain hasn't developed the Falklands. They still depend on Argentine ports and air services for the majority of trade, and why go to South Africa for trade when there is a perfect partner a few hundred miles away that you can win over with some form of agreement to return the islands if Britain can get down of its colonial high horse.

Go see my last post about Argentina cutting of the islands in the previous page. Doing so would be diplomatic suicide. The Falkland Islands have a autonomous power and have diversified their economic activity in recent years in agriculture, fishing, tourism, clothing and resource mining. Why should the United Kingdom subsidise the economic growth of the Falkland Islands when they have a perfectly legitimate system of governance that can do it on it's own.

[Caragonia]

Forum here's English, and I write in English.

I know the average english is uneducated and dont know any foreign language.

Congratulations, you're a racist.

[SD_Film Artists]

No we keep it because the people there want to be British.

Because the people there are British and colonists.There is a high bias. The argument is really stupid.

Being the victim of a military invasion by Argentina + Argentina having a South American Sara Palin wanting to take the islands again + the people always being British = not so fond of Argentina.

+ what Caragonia said.


high bias? I'm amazed!

[Malgrave]

Forum here's English, and I write in English.

I know the average english is uneducated and dont know any foreign language.

Nice insult bro.

[Samuraikoku]

I know the average english is uneducated and dont know any foreign language.

Unfortunately for your point, I'm from Argentina.

[Sedgistan]

I know the average english is uneducated and dont know any foreign language.

*** Gewaarschuwd voor trollen (warned for trolling) ***

[Great Agram]

...The empire was racist and genodical and the modern day "UK" is the successor.

Well, the bolded isn't really any different from any nation-state in the world, especially considering one of the things humans are best at is killing each other.

And we were the UK when we had the Empire anyway.

Lol

No, stop relativising by giving the etikete to the others. Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece and other land regarged by the British as primitive had not an colonial Empire.We all know who did the worst crimes in Africa.

[Great Agram]

I know the average english is uneducated and dont know any foreign language.

*** Gewaarschuwd voor trollen (warned for trolling) ***

Ok, I will stop. I had just seen the warning.