by cedars 319 Replies latest members politics
Chariklo - oh I'm not saying they WERE once Argentinian. I'm using this as an analogy assuming Emilie is correct! That's the beauty of it. Not only am I right on this issue in general, but even if I was wrong I would still be right thanks to this analogy! Understand?
They don't call me the British Lion for nothing you know...!!
Cedars
I do understand, cedars!
Deep respect, as ever!
Cedars, it is not a good analogy because there is a treaty between the United States and Mexico. To my knowledge, there is no treaty between the United Kingdom and Argentina whereby Argentina gives up any rights over the Islands.
Making the point that Mexico ceded her territorial rights in a treaty after being defeated in a war does not mean that I consider the Mexican-American War a ‘tea party’. You are putting words in my mouth and blatantly using a straw man argument when I never disputed that there was a war and that lives were lost. This is the problem with your false analogy. You brought up the Mexico war argument as a counter-balance to the Malvinas dispute. Fine. I made the point that the analogy did not fit since Mexico actually signed a treaty that ceded territory when Argentina never did. Did I need to explain to you the history of the Mexican-American War to show you that I knew it was not too much of an ‘amicable’ solution? You made the analogy, not me. These wikipedia wars are really amusing, and all they do is serve as a convenient distraction. So Mexico dried up a few tears, buried their dead, and called it a day. So why couldn’t Argentina just shut up and take her place among humiliated nations? I don’t know. Could it be that we’re not Mexico and it’s just silly and intellectually dishonest to just create a “well Mexico sucked it up, so now you need to” argument. Mexico is bound by treaty to not pursue the matter of her lost territories. Argentina is bound by no such treaty, and you can pretty much bank on the fact that if there had been no treaty signed, Mexico would have brought up the issue at one point of another. But then again, I shouldn’t assume like you do. After all, Mexico is not Argentina. Who has the colonial attitude now?
We can (and have) been going round and round with the whole ‘Argentina never legally held title to the islands’ logic. Did Don Pinedo need to hold a sceptre or imperial title to qualify as an Argentine administrator? A robe with ermine tails? The statement made by Captain Onslow says the following:
It is my intention to hoist to-morrow the national flag of Great Britain on shore when I request you will be pleased to haul down your flag on shore and withdraw your force, taking all stores belonging to your Government
With that statement, Onslow admits that the Argentine flag was indeed flying over Puerto Luis for him having to ask that it is hauled down and replaced by the Union Jack. He asks for Pinedo’s ‘force’ to be withdrawn, which implies an Argentine military presence. Then he proceeds to order Pinedo to remove Argentina’s ‘stores’, or what I guess means ‘property’. So there we have it. Argentine flag, Argentine captain and acting governor, Argentine forces, and stores were all removed all at the order of His Britannic Majesty. How is that not an Argentine territory? If it weren’t, then there’s be no need to eject Pinedo, his troops, flag, and property. The only argument you could possibly make was that the Argentines themselves were there illegally. That begs the question of who had the right to be there in the first place. The British certainly had no claim to Puerto Luis. If Argentina came and occupied their abandoned station at Port Egmont, they might have had more of an argument.
This brings us back to the fact that there was indeed a ‘war’ if you will between the UK and Argentina over the Malvinas. You guys won, you have us there. Unlike Mexico, we never ceded control or recognized your sovereignty, just like you refused to recognize ours. This is what I mean by the Malvinas dispute. Pretending it doesn’t exist doesn’t solve the problem. But you’re right, it’s our problem, not yours. We really need to just shut up about it, because we’re offending too many Falklanders and patriotic Brits. Perhaps you just need to tolerate this noise from down south and realise that this is what you get when you take a territory from another country under dubious means. After all, Mexico had to suffer a much worse fate than having Argentines making futile protests.
And you are correct, dgp, in saying that it's a poor analogy. I'm still waiting for a better one.
Emile:
If the Falkland Islanders voted to become their own nation do you think Argentina would still have a claim?
uhh, nevermind
With that statement, Onslow admits that the Argentine flag was indeed flying over Puerto Luis for him having to ask that it is hauled down and replaced by the Union Jack. He asks for Pinedo’s ‘force’ to be withdrawn, which implies an Argentine military presence. Then he proceeds to order Pinedo to remove Argentina’s ‘stores’, or what I guess means ‘property’. So there we have it. Argentine flag, Argentine captain and acting governor, Argentine forces, and stores were all removed all at the order of His Britannic Majesty.
So what? Anyone can put up a flag! It could have been a flag of Germany, France, Italy, Mars....the mere fact of putting up a flag just means that someone has put up a flagpole and stuck a flag on it. It doesn't say anything more than that.
My neighbour flies a Union Jack in his garden. Down the road, someone has a Stars and Stripes. His house is not a US Embassy. In another street, some wag flies the flag of what I think is the United Federation of Planets...doesn't mean we are actually in Star Trek Land with warp capability.
Get real!
On the subject of flags, didn't the UK leave a plaque on the Falklands indicating that the islands remained under their sovereignty? So do flags trump plaques all of a sudden?
Emilie - the analogy sticks whether you like it or not. Just because a "winner takes all" treaty was signed, the very fact that Mexico fought the USA in the first place indicates that they didn't want it to happen and weren't happy about it. Land was taken from them forcibly. A peace treaty was signed to end hostilities because they were the losers. This does not mean to say they were happy about it. I'm not saying that Argentina ever had a legitimate claim to the Falklands, but even if they did - this analogy would apply. Should the USA now start giving land back to Mexico, or enter "discussions" with them over sharing "resources" and enabling better "settlement"?
The more you argue over this, the more deluded you sound. No offense, but it really is like arguing with an indoctrinated JW. Basically, if you WANT to believe something you will find reasons to justify it however tenuous. This is exactly what you are doing over the Falklands.
The islanders have the last say, and they have spoken. End of discussion.
Cedars
On the subject of flags, didn't the UK leave a plaque on the Falklands indicating that the islands remained under their sovereignty? So do flags trump plaques all of a sudden?
Yes, they did, Cedars. In 1776, the British, led by Governor Samuel Clayton, withdrew their naval garrison from Port Egmont, but left a lead plaque claiming British sovereignty over all the Islands.
All the islands. Not just Port Egmont, as Emilie wrote recently above. The whole caboodle. And with reason, based on the history I have posted above, and which anyone can acccess in the .pdf I gave the link to.
I too have felt as if I've been arguing with a JW at times in this thread. But then, when you think about it, that's exactly what we've been doing!
Britain ought to the right thing here. I know that she is pretty ashamed of her colonial past.
Hey lmsa- I accept that there is an element that the present occupants were planted there and that Argentina has always viewed the Islands as being part of Argentina. Plus it makes sense that Argentina did indeed try to bring this to Britain's attention and that this was unacknowledged by Britain. Additionally Britain had the might and the power to silence Argentina. thanks for reminding us of this.
A shared approach to any mineral resources would be a good compromise if both sides are willing to negotiate this if they have not done so already. (Not up to spec on this yet).
btw besty is British and I know him as being fair
