Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's non relevant. I see lots of British all over the internet saying that all the time.
I disagree, you made the statement: "So, how come that the British claim that they were the first settlers? They were not." as part of your comment on the vaidation or lack thereof of the British position with regards to the Falkland Islands.
Now you say you do not wish to provide evidence to support the statement citing: "That's non relevant. I see lots of British all over the internet saying that all the time." so saying that what some British 'say' is evidence of a historical and evidenced political posture by the British Government.
Allegorical comment is not evidence and if you wish to not have people reply to and question your statements might i recommend that you either only make ones that you can support with evidence or simply not make them.
Its more defensible than ours is in California. They've been in the Falklands longer and for all intents and purposes the islands were uninhabited when they got there (minor outposts by the Spanish and French not withstanding).
The islands have never been part of the Argentine nation, the islands have no historically indigenous population, the British have been there for 179 years, the population is almost wholly British and have no desire to be taken over by Argentina. That's a strong enough case for the UK's continued ownership of the islands. The right of self-determination of free people should be respected regardless what Sra. Fernandez de Kirchner happens to thinks or what her political agenda is by pressing this claim.
The islands were owned by the Spanish once, the Spanish abandoned them. They were never Argentina's in the first place. Since the islanders want them to remain British, Argentina and the rest of the international community should honour and respect their wishes.
Plain and simple, Argentina HAS no position. The islands don't want to belong to Argentina, and the makeup of the people of the island is wholly British. It really, in the 21st century, doesn't matter which empire the islands belonged to. This is what we have NOW, and the is a group of islands that don't want Argentina and an Argentina that just wants the potential oil and the publicity.
All this squabbling is insanely pedantic and useless. The topic is as cut and dry as can be.
Well. The United Nations has stated over the years that "Self Determination" is the key (see some of my previous posts for links to the U.N. Mandates). Lets see if the result of this makes any difference to the Government of Argentina with regards to the Islands.
As stated in the article the British Government will stand by the wishes of the people, as they have previously and repeatedly stated.
It will be interesting to see the results. I suspect virtually everyone on the island is in support of being under UK jurisdiction. If the result is overwhelmingly in support of this, will the Argentine government still proclaim they are rightfully theirs or should be under joint sovereignty? If so, it will ultimately show Argentine government doesn't care about freedom of speech of self-determination.
It will be interesting to see the results. I suspect virtually everyone on the island is in support of being under UK jurisdiction. If the result is overwhelmingly in support of this, will the Argentine government still proclaim they are rightfully theirs or should be under joint sovereignty? If so, it will ultimately show Argentine government doesn't care about freedom of speech of self-determination.
I think they still would. Listen to the discussion on this forum for proof. The position , and you can even see it in this discussion, is that the current residents are illegally occupying the island, so it doesnt matter what they vote.
I can see both sides and indeed lived in London during the Falklands Conflict of the 80s. Biggest shame to me at the time was that all the jingoism in Britain then got the country behind that dreadful Thatcher woman...
The Falklands is a bit of a colonial accident. There comes a time when one may consider wouldn't all those sheep graze easier in the green fields of Sussex or even New Zealand.Actually for that matter and give the small population of Islanders GBP 1 million per household and all expenses paid to locate, covered with two years government assistance to allow them back on their feet and leave the wind swept miserable islands to the penguins,puffins and any whales....
Won't happen as economic interests dictate rich fishing grounds and oil........that's the main concern...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
