Las Malvinas AKA The Falkland Islands - why the argy-bargy?

by cedars 319 Replies latest members politics

• 

  besty

  The Argentine claim to the Malvinas has its holes for sure. I can admit that; the main one being that the settlement was in disarray by the time the British arrived.

  I think the main ones are:

  that the Argentine Convention was embroiled in a civil war with the city state of Buenos Aires in 1832, who had appointed Vernet, albeit without clear jurisdiction to do so. Britain was bringing rule of law to a troubled island occupied by the puppet of a city state almost 2000km away .

  that 'Argentina' spent the next 50 years in civil war (Buenos Aires again) and beating up on Chile to acquire Patagonia - no problem with expansionism there.

  and most importantly

  that the 1850 Convention of Settlement restored 'perfect relations of friendship' between Britain and the Argentine Federation (again represented by the top dog from Buenos Aires) and completely failed to mention the Falklands, thereby acknowledging that prior events were rendered moot.

  Perhaps this acquiesence of the status quo between 1849 and 1941 where no formal protests were made by Argentina to Britain is the fatal blow to their claims. International law seems to indicate 50 consecutive years without protest means all claims are dissolved, which they seemed to be in any case by the 1850 Convention of Settlement.
• 

  moshe

  An disfellowshipped, unmarried pregnant woman should have other concerns than a cold, wet and dreary island where sheep outnumber the humans 300 to 1-

  like baby names- if a boy, call him Malvino, a girl then, Malvina. ---One problem solved for you.
• 

  Las Malvinas son Argentinas

  The insertion of the Cherokee cause was just a distraction. What analogy could possibly be relevant with what is being discussed here?

  I asked a question a few posts ago and I still do not have my answer. Where in the Malvinas were the British established in the period between 1774 and 1833 to allow them to be “already British” as you claim? I put forward 1821-1833 as my response, and there was an Argentine presence there in Puerto Luis during this time. Please tell me where the British were established, or are you trying to suggest a phantom presence clause to sovereignty? You seek to discredit the 1821 to 1833 period because it was small and didn’t have stable leadership. Great. If that qualifies as a tenuous claim for Argentina, then I suggest that the British claim is even more tenuous.

  English might not be my first language, but I know when I am being talked down to. I do not attempt to control how others behave, but I do have the right to fair and decent conversation, minus the eye rolls, the sighs, and implications that you are right and I wont listen. You simply repeat your contention over and over again, and refuse to acknowledge the Argentine control of the islands before 1833. According to you, it never happened. And so this goes back and forth. I have yet to hear proof that these islands were continually British outside of the Port Egmont period up to 1774. Tell me how this is so.
• 

  besty

  Hey LMSA - I have enjoyed our dialog and hearing your point of view. I am Scottish and spent some formative years living on remote islands not unlike the Falklands. We left there in 1977 so the 1982 war was very real to me as I could picture the Falklands clearly.

  Your argument about British presence prior to 1833 is a good question and deserves an answer.

  In the meantime I have mentioned the 1850 Convention of Settlement which I believe terminally undermines subsequent claims, especially given the close to 100 years of diplomatic silence on the issue between 1849 and 1941.

  I would like to hear your thoughts on why this Convention was headlined as a treaty for the Settlement of existing Differences and the re-establishment of Friendship, and didn't so much as mention the Falklands?

  My conclusion is they were not important to Argentina.
• 

  moshe

  If you feel you have been talked down to, then maybe there is a reason for it. The long term members of this forum have years of experience in dealing with people who can't see the forest for the trees-
• 

  Chariklo

  Besty, about Britain and the Falklands prior to 1833, I've already given all this information, some of it several times over either in careful and lengthy forum posts here or in links to further information. It's there, either for re-reading or checking.

  I just ran out of the will to go on hitting my head against a brick wall. When there's no point, there's just no point in wasting more time talking to deaf ears.

  It's late here and I have an early start tomorrow and a busy day ahead. Enjoy yourselves!
• 

  cyberjesus

  I want my house back! the bank took it.. they repossed it but it was mine for 6 years....

  I want it back... I swear it had the pictures of my children and of my grandfather hanging... heck my dog lived in the backyard.

  There was a document called title... it had my name on it...

  I am gonna sue the bank cuz they evicted me.

  I am not happy
• 

  Think About It

  Mexico would probably like Texas back too, but they lost it in a war. Doesn't matter that they were there before the Americans. Debate the Falklands all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that England is not going to give it up. Argentina lost all rights to whine about it when they tried to take the islands by force and were defeated.

  Think About It
• 

  slimboyfat

  History does not matter. What matters is self-determination and consent.
• 

  rebel8

  What the heck is an argy-bargy?