Falklands 20 years ago

by LittleToe 20 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Joseph Joachim

  I think that Great Britain has, generally speaking, done a good job in relinquishing its territories back to the native inhabitants.

  The thing is that there were no native inhabitants in the Islands before the British colonization, they were up for grabs so to speak. The reason, as I mentioned above, is that they are no good in the eyes of a continental inhabitant. The only problem is that the islands are on the continental platform and thus, in theory, they are Argentine territory. If it weren't for that there would be no conflict at all.
• 

  Amazing

  Joseph:

  The thing is that there were no native inhabitants in the Islands before the British colonization, they were up for grabs so to speak. The reason, as I mentioned above, is that they are no good in the eyes of a continental inhabitant. The only problem is that the islands are on the continental platform and thus, in theory, they are Argentine territory. If it weren't for that there would be no conflict at all.

  I am pleased you admitted this. In this case, if there were no inhabitants, and "up for grabs" then the British grabbed them, and the Islands became the property of Great Britain. Theoretical continential shelf arguement don't fly. If the Falklands hold no 'value' then why would Argintina invade to take them away from Great Britain? It was a power play, and the British demonstrated that they are willing to use their power to hold onto their territory. The British kicked out the thieves.

  It is no more about brute force, than if a theif invades my home, and I blow his head off in self-defense. It is about rights, and the ability to defend the same.

  Following Bible principles, we will avoid trying to live - or demand others to live - by an extensive and rigid set of dos and don'ts that go beyond the teachings of the Bible. The Watchtower, 4-15-02, pg 22, pp 15
• 

  LittleToe

  I seem to recall that ownership of the Falklands somehow had some reflection on territorial rights to Antartica.
  Then again, I may be wrong, as it's off the top of my head, but it rings a bell.
  I think there was some similar issue between Britain and Iceland over fishing rights, due to the possesion of a small island.
• 

  MavMan

  If the Falklands hold no 'value' then why would Argentina invade to take them away from Great Britain? It was a power play

  Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands in a desperate attempt to gain the peoples favor. The Military Junta headed at that time by General Leopoldo Galtieri were loosing control of its people. Many mothers protested the disappearance of their children and the dictatorship was on its way out. They invaded so that the Argentine people would get engulfed in patriotism and forget that they did not have jobs nor enough food to put on their tables. It worked for a little while, until their young men started arriving in body bags. They had no chance against the military might of Great Britain.
• 

  Amazing

  Ah, yes Mavman ... I recall that Argentina was ruled by a dictatorship ... and this would have made a great ploy to get the support of the people. It is odd that Argentina would take on Great Britain ... they must have known it would be a lost cause. That is very good indication that you are right about the government being desperate to gain popular control.

  Hi Little Toe ... There are islands south of Argentina that form a tip toward Antartica ... the Falklands, as I recall sit more northwards and to the east. Here is a great chronology on the Falklands from the Argentine persepctive: http://www.yendor.com/vanished/falklands-war.html
• 

  LB

  I think that Great Britain has, generally speaking, done a good job in relinquishing its territories back to the native inhabitants

  Speaking as a native inhabitant let me say thank you. As with other native inhabitants it only took the slightest encouragment to get GB to give it up

  
  Never Squat With Yer Spurs On
• 

  Englishman

  I think we need to be honest here.

  The UK only really wants to hang on to territories that have some strategic importance. Before the Falklands war the government were keen to dump the islands and had provisionally suggested power sharing with Argentina. The Islanders were having none of it - we're Brits for Christ's sake! - so the country had to defend it's own.

  Same thing in Northern Island if the truth be known, with over 1 million people loyal to the UK over there, there is no way we can pull out.

  Besides, wouldn't the good ole US of A love to have a base there if we did pull out!

  Englishman.

  
• 

  Amazing

  Hi E-Man: "Besides, wouldn't the good ole US of A love to have a base there if we did pull out!"

  "1831: The American warship USS Lexington destroys the Argentine settlement on East Falkland in reprisal for the arrest of three U.S. ships that had been hunting seals in the area.

  1833: Afraid that the Americans seized the islands, the British remember the expedition of the 17th century, re-invade the islands, forcefully depose Vernet and send the Argentines back to the mainland albeit without having to fire a shot." http://www.yendor.com/vanished/falklands-war.html

  I have no doubt that if the UK pulled out of the Falklands, that Uncle George would find some good reason to set up shop there ... a strategic base, etc.
• 

  Fredhall

  Just like the Middle East, the Falkland Islands have a lot of oil.
• 

  Double Edge

  AMAZING: I checked out the hyperlink...very interesting. I forgot about alot that I read. Thanks.