Falkland Islands' Sovereignty Threatened?

[Imperializt Russia]

It's always wise to remember war, the better to avoid its folly in the future. But thanking the soldiers who died in a stupid war that you ultimately lost seems a bit odd. Honour their memories, sure, but why thank them for their bravery? Their bravery didn't achieve anything. They died for nothing. If anything they should be receiving apologies, not thanks.

Don't agree.

I believe he means the Argentina government should be apologising in memory of fallen Argentine soldiers in the war.

[Calimera II]

Maybe you should look up the facts about 1833. We REASSERTED our ownership of the islands after the Argentines try to steal it from us and claim it as their own.

Suuure.

[Paredonia]

Really? Maybe you should access a university searching base and you'll see plenty of articles written by non-Argentines on this issue, which support the Argentine case.

Let me guess, South Americans? Argentine allies? Because I'm pretty sure the vast majority of the Western world support us, since, you know, we ARE the only possible legitimate owners of the islands. It would be foolish to support anyone else.

[Paredonia]

Maybe you should look up the facts about 1833. We REASSERTED our ownership of the islands after the Argentines try to steal it from us and claim it as their own.

Suuure.

Roll your eyes all you want, you can't change facts.
Go to this page -----> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reassertion_of_British_sovereignty_over_the_Falkland_Islands_(1833)
and check all the references at the bottom. The facts speak for themselves.

[Calimera II]

Don't agree.

I believe he means the Argentina government should be apologising in memory of fallen Argentine soldiers in the war.

They receive honour and respect. I think that is what they deserve, not just apologies. Furthermore, Cristina Kirchner already apologised.

[Novus America]

Irrelevant. It does not matter if the war was formally declared or not.

It sort of does, since you can't just go around sinking other nations warships during peacetime. The UK declared a 200 nautical mile engagement zone, and the Belgrade was sunk outside it. The justification was that the UK had declared that they would engage any threat to their forces, even outside their engagement zone.

It does not matter as a declaration of war does not make a war. Obviously you cannot just attack others in peacetime but the Falklands War was cleary not peacetime.

But the rules of war in undeclared wars are the same as the rules in declared ones.

Any Argentine threat to British forces in Argentine or international waters was a legitimate target.

[Calimera II]

Really? Maybe you should access a university searching base and you'll see plenty of articles written by non-Argentines on this issue, which support the Argentine case.

Let me guess, South Americans? Argentine allies? Because I'm pretty sure the vast majority of the Western world support us, since, you know, we ARE the only possible legitimate owners of the islands. It would be foolish to support anyone else.

Lol.

[Grenartia]

Ah so you dont have a source then.

See this is how an argument works: when you make a claim, you back it up with sources and evidence, you dont sit and wait whilst asking others to back it up for you.

And 5-10% is still a sizeable minority and still leaves room for a good number of catholic soldiers, it does not mean there would be none all together.

And the fact that Catholics were being killed by British forces(obviously referring to the troubles here) does not mean that every single catholic in the UK or elsewhere is going to be universally opposed to the British Government. Because that is not how people work.

so in short, stop talking out your ass.

I do not have a source. It is on your part to proove otherwise. Why should the Church make some mass commemoration for British soldiers if there was no Catholics in them?

No, no, no, young Becky. That's not how this works. YOU made the claim, therefore, Burden of Proof falls on YOU.

[Paredonia]

Lol.

A very worthy addition to the argument. I understand why you said it though, it's because you know I'm right and there is no possible way you can refute it.

[Calimera II]

Suuure.

Roll your eyes all you want, you can't change facts.
Go to this page -----> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reassertion_of_British_sovereignty_over_the_Falkland_Islands_(1833)
and check all the references at the bottom. The facts speak for themselves.

Go to this page -----> https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocupaci%C ... inas_(1833)
and check all the references at the bottom. The facts speak for themselves.

You see, you don't make any point.

Lol.

A very worthy addition to the argument. I understand why you said it though, it's because you know I'm right and there is no possible way you can refute it.

Of course I can, I just think it is not even worth to give such a comment a response. Bet you never heard of Myhre, an expert in law who makes some very good arguments in favour of Argentina's sovereign claim? Not everyone agrees with Britain, and you know it.

[Grenartia]

If one accepts the Argentine argument that the Falklanders are not a native population and are in fact an implanted British population, then no "liberation" can possibly have taken place.

Actually it can. The liberation of the land is important. 1. The British living there could integrate into Argentinians society or 2. move back to England.

1. Why should they have to?

2. You're inching awfully close to calling for ethnic cleansing.

[Paredonia]

Go to this page -----> https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocupaci%C ... inas_(1833)
and check all the references at the bottom. The facts speak for themselves.

You see, you don't make any point.

According to that link, the page doesn't exist. The one that DOES exist however is the article I linked you to, which, let me remind you, says: "Reassertion of British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (1833)" Reassertion being the keyword here.

[Grenartia]

So I've just seen the argument that the Argentinians came out of the war better. Given that it led to the collapse of the Junta and the rise of democracy, whereas on our side we wound up with more Maggie.

I can kind of see that point.

Really, the Brits were the true victims of the war.

[Calimera II]

Go to this page -----> https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocupaci%C ... inas_(1833)
and check all the references at the bottom. The facts speak for themselves.

You see, you don't make any point.

According to that link, the page doesn't exist. The one that DOES exist however is the article I linked you to, which, let me remind you, says: "Reassertion of British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (1833)" Reassertion being the keyword here.

Try again: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocupaci%C3%B3n_brit%C3%A1nica_de_las_islas_Malvinas_(1833)
''Ocupación británica de las Islas Malvinas (1833)'' British occupation being the keyword here.

Again, your argument doesn't make any sense.

[Paredonia]

Really, the Brits were the true victims of the war.

Well of course we were. After all, we were the ones that got invaded by an aggressive, foreign power.

[Calimera II]

Actually it can. The liberation of the land is important. 1. The British living there could integrate into Argentinians society or 2. move back to England.

1. Why should they have to?

2. You're inching awfully close to calling for ethnic cleansing.

That is not Argentina's official stance and I do not agree with Mertokuria, just for your interest.

[Paredonia]

Try again: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocupaci%C3%B3n_brit%C3%A1nica_de_las_islas_Malvinas_(1833)
''Ocupación británica de las Islas Malvinas (1833)'' British occupation being the keyword here.

Again, your argument doesn't make any sense.

Oh wow, it's a Spanish corruption of an English article that existed long before Spanish Wikipedia. That's really reliable isn't it(?)

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Look, Argentina could just drag the UK before the Court of Arbitration or the International Court of Justice. That way, if they feel like they have a good case, they can let an internationally accepted organisation decide on the matter. Of course, such steps would only be reasonable if you truly believe your case to make any sense. Because, if the Argentines took this to the ICJ, they would have to submit to their ruling. And the Argentine government doesn't want to lose this power foreign policy item. If they take this case to court, they'll most likely lose (because, come on, the Falklands belong to the UK), and then they have no legal leg to stand on. So, they're making a really big fuss, ignoring all normal routes of diplomacy, because they so desperately want to have that one issue to be mad about. And it works.

[Calimera II]

Oh wow, it's a Spanish corruption of an English article that existed long before Spanish Wikipedia. That's really reliable isn't it(?)

''Sources only count when they support Britain's claim!''

You argument doesn't make any sense.

[Ifreann]

It's always wise to remember war, the better to avoid its folly in the future. But thanking the soldiers who died in a stupid war that you ultimately lost seems a bit odd. Honour their memories, sure, but why thank them for their bravery? Their bravery didn't achieve anything. They died for nothing. If anything they should be receiving apologies, not thanks.

Don't agree.

Why not? Their lives were thrown away in a foolish and failed attempt to control some land. An apology sounds like the very least that should be forthcoming.

---

I believe he means the Argentina government should be apologising in memory of fallen Argentine soldiers in the war.

They receive honour and respect. I think that is what they deserve, not just apologies.

I don't believe I used the word "just" in the post in question.

Furthermore, Cristina Kirchner already apologised.

Good.

[Dooom35796821595]

Look, Argentina could just drag the UK before the Court of Arbitration or the International Court of Justice. That way, if they feel like they have a good case, they can let an internationally accepted organisation decide on the matter. Of course, such steps would only be reasonable if you truly believe your case to make any sense. Because, if the Argentines took this to the ICJ, they would have to submit to their ruling. And the Argentine government doesn't want to lose this power foreign policy item. If they take this case to court, they'll most likely lose (because, come on, the Falklands belong to the UK), and then they have no legal leg to stand on. So, they're making a really big fuss, ignoring all normal routes of diplomacy, because they so desperately want to have that one issue to be mad about. And it works.

Would the UK be able to bring it to the ICJ to get a ruling on their own?

[Paredonia]

''Sources only count when they support Britain's claim!''

You argument doesn't make any sense.

I'm just saying, the English article existed LONG before your Spanish one did. I would be more inclined to listen to what came first, just like the British claim.

At least I actually have an argument, unlike the Argentine argument which basically amounts to: "Some Argentines visited the island for a few days and they liked it so much they decided to try and steal it off the UK. When the UK stopped them from doing that, Argentina got irritated and has claimed it as theirs ever since even though Argentina has no legitimate claim whatsoever".

[Vassenor]

Oh wow, it's a Spanish corruption of an English article that existed long before Spanish Wikipedia. That's really reliable isn't it(?)

''Sources only count when they support Britain's claim!''

You argument doesn't make any sense.

You're the one who admitted that the Spanish Wikipedia has a pro-Argentine bias.

Because English Wikipedia is bias. The English wikipedia even doesn't mention the economic corporation on the Malvinas, does not include other arguments of Argentina and has a bias in favour of Great Britain (: the same way the Spanish wikipedia has a bias in favour of Argentina).

[Grenartia]

I am hoping to steer the topic back to something vaguely relevant.

I'll wade in later, personally. I'm interested to see the relative opinion of the anglosphere.

As an American, I honestly feel like you Brits have the only legitimate claim. To say nothing of the fact that if we have to take the Argentine position of "inheriting the claim from Spain" as legitimate, then its only reasonable that America get in on this action, too. Why can't we inherit the islands from Britain? LAS MALVINAS SON AMERICANAS!

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

If you aren't aware that Vietnam veterans were treated awfully in the US, you have very little exposure to western popular culture either of or referencing that era.

No-one really understood what the Vietnam war was for. It continually escalated and it was never clear to the public, and often to the soldiers, why.
Atrocities committed by some soldiers and units tarred all Vietnam vets, as it was a unique war - it was televised, it was beamed into the American home. It was a brutal conflict. Napalm, not used particularly widely or extensively since that conflict, still has an enormous impact on western popular culture.

I watched some TV films which involved Vietnam veterans but never understood the real situation behind this. I though they were all in bad condition because they could not adjust to the society when coming home, but I was not aware they were delibaretely mistreated by the society.

This happens a lot, though. Young men get sent off do fight a war, and by that, they become the war. War has a nasty tendency to become unpopular over time, and when the war inevitably ends, the soldiers, embodiments of the war, return home to a country that despises the entire conflict. And they were the people who fought in it. It reminds me of 'Im Westen nichts Neues', where the soldier returns home to an ungrateful nation that doesn't understand the horrors of modern war, while blaming him for all the loss of the loved fatherland. It's a problem as old as modern war, and perhaps older.