360 replies to this topic

[Mr Right Wing]

Mekorig, on 17 February 2012 - 05:05 PM, said:

Cop, when part of your territory is ocuppied, its inhabitants expelled and foreign population is brought, you never end in trying to reclaim your territory. Imagine that the USA took Ottawa, expell all the canadians and brings some USa residents to live there.

Argentina seems to be locked into a dangerous state of mind which will see a lot of its young adults massacred in yet another lost war.

[Corp]

Mekorig, on 17 February 2012 - 05:05 PM, said:

Cop, when part of your territory is ocuppied, its inhabitants expelled and foreign population is brought, you never end in trying to reclaim your territory. Imagine that the USA took Ottawa, expell all the canadians and brings some USa residents to live there.

If it happened hundreds of years ago, if Ottawa was owned and settled by several different countries, if it was last a penal colony last time we owned it, if we had only owned it for a dozen years, and if the only reason my government was trying to get it back was it distract the local population and grab oil rights then I wouldn't think it was worth another war.

And just an fyi but Canada has lost disputed territory to the US a few times in the past but we've been able to move past that. Hell the national bountries of Europe have been redrawn several times but the Europeans seem to be getting along alright.

Also there's a "r" in my user name

[Mekorig]

Corp, on 17 February 2012 - 05:40 PM, said:

Also there's a "r" in my user name

Sorry about that.  

The thing is, the question is up negotiation in the Special Committee on Decolonization in the UN, and Argentina is willing to negotiate (heck, some years ago there was some strong ideas about a joint sovereign of the islands, ala Hong Kong). It is the UK that refuse to sit down and negotiate, and keep sending boats and militarizing the south atlantic.

[keithisco]

The one interesting thing about these opposing claims to the Malvinas / Falklands, is that neither Argentina nor the UK will actually go to the International Courts for a resolution in this matter because neither side is sufficiently confident that their claim will stand. The International Courts will deliberate for a very long time on only the Legal Aspects of the claims and will deliver a verdict that will be just and fair.

The fact that neither side want to take this route is a clear indication that neither really believes their claim to be entirely sound.

[stevewinn]

Mekorig, on 17 February 2012 - 05:52 PM, said:

Sorry about that.  

The thing is, the question is up negotiation in the Special Committee on Decolonization in the UN, and Argentina is willing to negotiate (heck, some years ago there was some strong ideas about a joint sovereign of the islands, ala Hong Kong). It is the UK that refuse to sit down and negotiate, and keep sending boats and militarizing the south atlantic.

why should we negotiate when you dont have a claim on the territory?

militarising the south atlantic,if you hadnt illegally invaded British sovereign territory in 1982, there would have been no need to improve defence of the islands.

[keithisco]

Harping back to my previous post...

It is evident that neither litigant has a clear claim on the Malvinas / Falklands - or else they would have pursued their claim through the International Courts. So.. both sides have a claim, but neither is sufficiently strong enough to guarantee success.

Negotiations on Sovereignty between the UK, Argentina and the Falklands Local govt should be held. Then at least everyones voice is heard. Perhaps Argentina can convince the Falklanders that joining them is a good idea, depends what is put on the table... maybe not, and then we return to the current status quo. The whole point being that fully inclusive negotiations does not anount to  "surrender" of sovereignty, but it does amount to a "Mature" approach to Foreign Policy.

[Mekorig]

keithisco, on 17 February 2012 - 06:43 PM, said:

Harping back to my previous post...

It is evident that neither litigant has a clear claim on the Malvinas / Falklands - or else they would have pursued their claim through the International Courts. So.. both sides have a claim, but neither is sufficiently strong enough to guarantee success.

Negotiations on Sovereignty between the UK, Argentina and the Falklands Local govt should be held. Then at least everyones voice is heard. Perhaps Argentina can convince the Falklanders that joining them is a good idea, depends what is put on the table... maybe not, and then we return to the current status quo. The whole point being that fully inclusive negotiations does not anount to  "surrender" of sovereignty, but it does amount to a "Mature" approach to Foreign Policy.

The thing is, the UN call for the UK and Argentina to negotiate, not the islanders. The UK is the one who tries to put them in the middle. The UN does not have them in count because they are not a native population, but an imported population. That si also why the self-determination policy have little weight in the discution.

[Corp]

Mekorig, on 17 February 2012 - 05:52 PM, said:

Sorry about that.  

The thing is, the question is up negotiation in the Special Committee on Decolonization in the UN, and Argentina is willing to negotiate (heck, some years ago there was some strong ideas about a joint sovereign of the islands, ala Hong Kong). It is the UK that refuse to sit down and negotiate, and keep sending boats and militarizing the south atlantic.

Well thing is from an outsiders view there doesn't seem to be any reason why the UK should negotiate. From what I know of the Falklands history Argentina only had control of the islands for about thirteen years. Less than a generation. Before then the Spanish and British largely shared the islands. So it hardly seems to be some key part of Argentinian territory. After all the British have had the islands for almost two hundred years now and the locals want to remain part of the UK. So why keep pushing it? By continuing to bring this matter up it just makes Argentina look like bullies who want to conquer the islands.

[Mr Right Wing]

Mekorig, on 17 February 2012 - 07:23 PM, said:

The thing is, the UN call for the UK and Argentina to negotiate, not the islanders. The UK is the one who tries to put them in the middle. The UN does not have them in count because they are not a native population, but an imported population. That si also why the self-determination policy have little weight in the discution.

The UK refuses to negiotiate because the islands have never been owned by Argentina.

Argentina has no legal right to try and claim British territories which used to be Spanish. When Argentina rebelled against Spain it didnt suddendly gain the rights to any nearby Spanish territories that it liked the look off.

If a second war comes a nuclear shock will need to be delivered followed by military occupation of the mainland. We will need to clean out the Argentinian leadership and give the people a new constituition to make sure the problem doesnt occur again.

I hope it doesnt come to that as 500,000 dead Argentinians is a sad waste of life.

[Corp]

Right Wing the internet tough guy act isn't helping your position. In fact it's harming it.

[and then]

Mr Right Wing, on 17 February 2012 - 09:26 PM, said:

The UK refuses to negiotiate because the islands have never been owned by Argentina.

Argentina has no legal right to try and claim British territories which used to be Spanish. When Argentina rebelled against Spain it didnt suddendly gain the rights to any nearby Spanish territories that it liked the look off.

If a second war comes a nuclear shock will need to be delivered followed by military occupation of the mainland. We will need to clean out the Argentinian leadership and give the people a new constituition to make sure the problem doesnt occur again.

I hope it doesnt come to that as 500,000 dead Argentinians is a sad waste of life.

If the Argies repeated '82 without help it would end the same way.  Money spent and lives lost for no real gain, just a return to the status quo.  Neither Britain nor any other sane government would kill so many people and spoil the very ground they were trying to defend over what amounts to a real estate grab.  IMO the Argentines have taken a look at what the PA are trying in the UN and see that route as a bloodless, economically viable method to do what they couldn't do with force.... just like the Pali's.  From their position, any concessions are a bonus and set a precedent for more in future.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Why go on all the time about it being "part of your territory"? Why exactly is it so important that the Malvinas are part of Argentina? In practical terms, i mean. What do they have that makes it so important?
Why is it, you might ask, so important that the Falklands remain British territory? Well, it seems to be that the people almost in their entirety want to be. Is that altogether unreasonable?

[Corp]

I believe there some new oil/gas discovered in the area and control of the Falklands would help Argentina get more of the claim.

[The Silver Thong]

Corp, on 18 February 2012 - 06:57 PM, said:

I believe there some new oil/gas discovered in the area and control of the Falklands would help Argentina get more of the claim.

[Flibbertigibbet]

Mekorig, on 17 February 2012 - 05:05 PM, said:

Cop, when part of your territory is ocuppied, its inhabitants expelled and foreign population is brought, you never end in trying to reclaim your territory. Imagine that the USA took Ottawa, expell all the canadians and brings some USa residents to live there.

When were the islands ever part of Argentina?