Why have we let a forum for ex jw get hijacked by cries for Argentina who lost the island twice and don't deserve to hold it. Screw pot south American government should just quit while their behind.
Az
David Cameron Confronts Cristina Fernandez (UK v Argentina)
by cofty 182 Replies latest social current
-
-
Chariklo
It's happened because Cristina Fernandez has a policy of introducung the Falklands as an issue wherever an Argentinian finds themselves a platform. Internet forums on just about any subject are a gift from heaven, sitting ducks.
If a particular Argentinian hasn't got a platform, they'll find some way of making themseves credible as a forum member and then, almost within minutes, guess what issue comes up!
-
Diest
Its fun to debate on here....its not like the other Americans and I dont argue about politics all the time. Nothing wrong with a little arggy-barggy(sp?)
-
Las Malvinas son Argentinas
I answered your question. Since the legal title to the land was dubious in the first place, this brings up several issues which have been subsequently glossed over. If the islanders want British administration, then they can have it. But sovereignty belongs to Argentina. When the maps are drawn up, they should be called "Malvinas/Falklands" with the flag of the Sun of May prominent. The same way sovereignty would still belong to the UK should any third party decide to occupy and populate a sparsely inhabited or uninhabited adjacent British island. Military conquest doesn't establish legality. Israeli settlements were built on mostly unused Palestinian communal farming land. Does that make the settlements legitimate and therefore the settlers entitled to a vote? Of course none of the Spanish/Argentines from the removal are still alive. That wasn't a serious question. It doesn't change the fact that they were forcibly evicted by a country which had abandoned the same islands and renounced her sovereignty several times over before unilaterally deciding she wanted them again.
Colonialism is indeed a loaded word, designed to draw the reader to a desired conclusion. There are different lengths to which it was applied. The British, Spanish, French, Dutch, Portuguese, and later the Germans and Belgians are all guilty of it. The Napoleonic Wars put an end to most of Spain's colonial ambitions, and her former colonies rose up in revolt. It was within this vacuum that the unique nature of the Malvinas dispute comes into play. Since they had no native population, the rights to the Malvinas came with which country actually settled the country. We can talk all day about the indigenous population of the Americas if we want, but it only amounts to a boiling pot of psuedo-logic designed to distract from the real issue. The French settled Isla Soledad, sold their rights to the Spanish, and was ruled out of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata. Argentina next took control over the Malvinas after a short gap, and it was only after the residents were forcibly removed by the Americans and finally by the Royal Navy in 1833 that this control ceased. Two wrongs don't make a right. There was no reason other than control of strategic islands and implantation of a new colony that we have this situation today. That is why I dub it colonialism at its worst. There was simply no excuse for it, and it was a blatant act of dispossession.
I realise that the prevailing opinion is that it's just a 'rock' as Diest put it. Then let's apply this principle to its greatest extent. Find the most forlorn 'rock' that you own, and give it to us. But I'd much rather have the 'rock' that is actually ours. Nuestra Malvinas.
Forums are made for discussion. It's not easy for some to hear a contrary viewpoint. I hear them all the time here about the Malvinas. Some are reasoned arguments, while others are lacking for quality and substance, while playing around with facts. It amuses me to no end about how many British intellectuals, journalists, historians, and public figures share much of the same feelings as I have about the Malvinas. To add to that chorus, we have a steady retinue of 'neutrals' such as Obama, Clinton, Scty. General Ban Yi Moon, and Vladimir Putin, who espouse the same argument that the much maligned Cristina Fernandez is taking to the court of world opinion. There's a legitimate dispute regarding the islands. Let's talk. Unfortunately, according to Simon Jenkins' opinion piece in the Guardian, 3000 people hold an effective veto over British foreign policy.
-
cofty
Your attempt to draw a moral equivalence between the Falklands and Israeli occupation of Palestine is risible.
Unfortunately, according to Simon Jenkins' opinion piece in the Guardian, 3000 people hold an effective veto over British foreign policy.
Of course they do and that's Argentina's fault. You invaded, covered their Island in land mines and killed 255 British troops sent to evict your army of occupation. No other solution is possible apart from upholding the wishes of the Islanders.
-
Las Malvinas son Argentinas
Israel/Palestine is the same principle, different century. It is not an exact equivalence in the historical sense, but has similarities with the concept of settling militarily conquered land. This is why we had so much fuss over whether or not the invasion of 1833 happened or not. According to the internal memos of the British Foreign Office, it did. Once you establish that there was an invasion and subsequent occupation of land, then the morality behind the entire venture is questionable. Israel/Palestine is on a much bigger world stage and involves thousands of more people, so how about I refine the analogy to a more smaller and suitable level? There are a few thousand Israeli settlers in the Syrian Golan Heights. Should a referendum be held, Israel would likely be the winner. It still doesn't morally make the territory Israeli by popular vote.
That the 1982 invasion was a mistake is logic I can buy into. It certainly didn't accomplish anything but guarantee that the British are holding onto the territory. A simple case of messing with the bull and getting the horns. Asking nicely would have been a more feasible option. Our bad. We did lose 323 civilians and soldiers on the ARA General Belgrano when it was both outside the British declared exclusion zone and was headed back to port. But oh the casualties and feebleness of war...
-
slimboyfat
There's one important difference from the Palestinian situation. There are many Palestinians alive who were displaced from their land. Justice for them is a living issue. There is not a single Argentinian alive who was displaced from the Falklands. What you are suggesting amounts to overriding the rights of living people on the principle of justice for people who are dead over a hundred years.
You say Falklanders can have British administration but not sovereignty. What does that mean? And why can't they have sovereignty?
-
slimboyfat
Military conquest doesn't establish legality.
So when is Argentina going to be returned to the Incas?
-
jamesmahon
LMSA - why do you give a damn? I mean really, what difference does it make to you? 3000 people living on a rock want to be governed a certain way. What blind bit of difference does it make to you? If they voted to become completely independent and install Maradona as absolute monarch and sacrifice sheep at his feet the vast majority of british people could not give the tiniest shit. Self determination is what matters, not your, mine or anyone else's view on how these people choose to identify themselves or their islands. Yes - their islands. Not britains' or argentina's. They live there, they farm there, they can do as they damn well please. Unless you intend to give the land you call your country back to the natives from which your ancestors stole it.
-
Las Malvinas son Argentinas
Ah, the false logic of 'you guys did it too, way back when'. I love it when the greatest offenders of imperialism try to teach a lesson in morality to a republic founded in revolt to her own colonial masters. The Incan empire only touched a small portion of the northwest, BTW. Argentina was largely devoid of indigenous population, which is reflected in our largely European ancestry. So sure, we'll settle the bill with the 'Incas', so as long as you settle your debts with... hmm, let's see... the list is pretty long there and is a hodge-podge of North American Indians, Africans, Aborigines, Polynesians and... well, you get the point. Fine, we are all guilty of a colonial transgression at one point or another. Argentina is guilty by association with the Spanish Viceroyalty, but I'm confident that there is scant reference then or now to an Argentine "Empire". I can think of one empire that has had quite a few imperial adventures with Argentina. Hmmm.... the name eludes me right now.
Administration and sovereignty are two different things. You can have a British administration which runs local affairs, with a parent government which handles all external affairs. Kind of like the current situation with the Malvinas. But hey, looks like the folks there don't want it. Forcing it on them and expressing an opinion that the legal title to that land is dubious are two different things. So if we in Argentina ever have to deal with an 'Incan' revolt, then I guess we had it coming. Likewise, when you see Argentines complaining about the Malvinas, you can chalk it up to the same principle. It's the price you pay for settling on disputed land.
I suppose the poor Palestinians have a good 60 or so years left on all claims of sovereignty in their land, since by then all Palestinians directly displaced by the Israelis would be in the ground by then. What a noble concept. Kick people out from their land, ship in your own people, and take a vote after all refugees have turned to dust.