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.
Actually, I don't recall you arguing beyond "really, really want!", but feel free put forth an argument. Why should the Falklands be considered Argentine?
Genocide as justification, now I have seen it all.
I put some in the other similar Thread "Kirchner at it again". Here i repost it :
On November 6, 1820, Daniel Jewett, from Port Loneliness formalized the possession of the Malvinas in name of the government of the River Plate. The official acting in name of the government of Buenos Aires it occupied the islands invoking the beginning of uti possidetis. This beginning, the Latin-American conditions understood as it at the beginning of last century, it was defining the territorial sovereignty on the basis of the former administrative colonial limits. The European and North American jurists do not accept, in general, this beginning. For them the criterion of sovereignty is given by the effective occupation of the territory.
It is important to indicate that the news of the capture of possession by the Argentina was published both in Spain and in the United States in August, 1821. This fact did not generate the protest of Great Britain. In 1825 this country signed an Agreement of Friendship, Trade and Navigation with the Close Provinces and simultaneously it recognized his independence, and neither in both acts was done any reference to the occupation of the islands on the part of the South American condition.
In 1823, to reinforce the sovereignty, Pablo Areguati was nominated as governor. At the same time, the same government granted to Jorge Pacheco and to his partner Luis Vernet (naturalized Argentine Frenchman) the right to exploit cattle and fishing in the Loneliness Isla (Isla Soledad). The Pacheco's first attempt for be establishing in the islands failed. The second attempt, realized personally by Vernet, was successful in 1826. So that up to this date there had not existed an establishment of the Joined Provinces in the islands.
Little later, at the beginning of 1828, immediately after a report sent to Buenos Aires by Vernet, the government of Buenos Aires granted the exclusive right of fishing to him in the adjacent waters and extended the concession of Pacheco The colony was declared free of taxes except for the maintenance of the local authorities.
On June 10, 1829, Vernet was named by the post of The First Political and Military Commander of the islands.
Expeditions were organized; several dozens of colonists, some with his families, came directly from Europe or were embarked in Montevideo, provided with cattle and useful of tillage and fishing. The pampas of Buenos Aires provided gauchos for the ranching and up to Patagonian aborigens. Passed less than two years. The colony was counting a houndred of persons', more or less stable hundred, included the whale-boats and sealers of any origin, the European employees and some slaves of Vernet.
A testimony of an official of the English Navy, Fitzroy, of visit in Malvinas during these years (prior to 1833)
“The governor, Louis Vernet, received me with cordiality. He possesses much information and speaks several languages. His house is long and low, of one story, with very thick walls of stone. I found in it a good library, of Spanish, German and English works. A lively conversation passes at dinner, the party consisting of Mr. Vernet and his wife; Mr. Brisbane, and others; in the evening we had music and dancing. In the room was a grand piano-forte; Mrs. Vernet, a Buenos Ayrean lady, gave us some excellent singing, which sounded not a little strange at the Falkland Isles where we expected to find only a few sealers”
another poster piously gave an example of argentinian torture - crimes against its own people , just pointing out the hypocrosy of a brit doing so
i havent said that i think the falklands - los malvinas should be given back to argentina
You have a problem with the British. I suggest you start another thread, that's all. It's certainly not the first time you've hijacked threads with this nonsense.
You have a problem with the British. I suggest you start another thread, that's all. It's certainly not the first time you've hijacked threads with this nonsense.
The Rights and Wrongs of the Historic Claims to the Falkland Islands
From 'Tempest in a Teapot' by Reginald & Elliot, 1983
The American academics Reginald & Elliot in their 1983 study of the Falklands War entitled 'Tempest in a Teapot' state, "In looking at the historic claims made by Argentina and Britain for sovereignty over the Falklands/Malvinas, one is struck by the obvious sincerity of both sides, and by the absolute impossibility of reaching a fair and impartial decision based upon existing evidence."
They pose the question 'Who really owns or should own the Falklands?' and review the claims put forward by each side.
"If we regard the first sighting of the islands as a basis for sovereignty, Spain would seem to have the stronger case, based upon Francisco Camargo's apparent description of the Falklands in 1540. It should be emphasised, however, that none of the early supposed sightings are certain; determining the actual discoverer of the Falklands with any degree of assurance may be impossible at this late date, due to lack of supporting documentation.
If we regard actual occupation of the islands as a basis for claiming sovereignty, the Spanish again have the stronger case, based upon succession to the French colony of 1764, which France sold to Spain three years later; the French colony existed a year before the British settled Port Egmont. However, both the British and the Spanish withdrew their colonies, thereby leaving themselves open to charges of abandonment, and perhaps negating their original claims.
If we regard proximity to the Argentine mainland as a basis for sovereignty, Argentina would seem to have little case, since the Falklands lie beyond the 200-mile territorial limit claimed by Argentina and generally recognised by most countries around the world.
If we regard Argentine succession to Spanish claims as a basis for sovereignty, Argentina has at best a dubious case, since (1) Spain abandoned its colony on the Falklands; (2) although Spain administered the Falklands through Buenos Aires, such arrangements are and were common for the sake of expediency, and by no means necessarily indicated that the Falklands were considered part of the South American mainland - the Falklands always had their own governor; and (3) Argentina did not succeed to any part of the Spanish Empire except southeastern South America, which may or may not have included the Falklands.
…. Argentina did occupy the Falklands in 1820, and maintained a tenuous colony until the British displaced them. It is upon this fact that Argentina's strongest claim is based. But even this claim includes its share of deficiencies, the chief being that Argentina never controlled more than a small section of the Falklands, that part near Puerto Soledad, during its twelve years of occupancy. The sealers and whalers who used the islands as a way station did not acknowledge Argentine sovereignty or control, and generally refused to pay taxes for their catches. Argentina's half-hearted attempts to impose its authority over these transients failed. Further, the Argentine colony never consisted of more than fifty or a hundred settlers, and these few colonists made few attempts to farm, raise livestock, or otherwise conduct themselves as permanent residents.
Still, there is no doubt the acting Argentine governor was forcibly ousted from the islands by the British, and that this displacement was protested by the government of Argentina as a breach of its sovereignty. The grounds cited by the British for imposing control are dubious at best. In fact, the Argentine assertion that the British were seeking to control the seas near Cape Horn is probably correct.
….. Given the justice of the Argentine protest over what was probably an illegal seizure of the islands by Great Britain, what justice is there in the British position? In fact, irrespective of the circumstances surrounding the British occupation of the islands in 1833, the British have physically governed the islands longer than all of the previous owners combined. Further, neither Argentina nor Spain had made any attempts to develop the islands, beyond Vernet's grandiose schemes, and no private individuals owned any expanse of land under Spanish or Argentine rule except for Vernet and his grantees. Under British government, perhaps 2,000 permanent settlers have developed the land, half of which was privately owned, the rest being owned by the Falkland Islands Company. Moreover, it is clear from recent events that the Falkland Islanders are at least partially self-governing, having thwarted various proposals made by both sides to end the struggle through negotiations. The fact that most of the islanders are descended from five or six generations of a continuously resident population is not, as the Argentines have claimed, irrelevant to the issue. The Argentine refusal to consider the islanders' wishes when addressing the issue of sovereignty was and is foolishly shortsighted, since it makes the issue one of human rather than legal rights, thereby diminishing the stature of their case in the eyes of the democratically governed world."
Reginald & Elliot conclude by suggesting that the real causes of the Falklands War "have more to do with governmental blunders than with historical or actual claims", blunders which are examined in detail in their short and eminently readable volume, which is recommended reading for anyone interested in the politics of war rather than military manoeuvres.
You're kidding, right? Since I joined this forum I have seen lots of posts of yours against Britain.
Do you suffer from some form of selective amnesia?
You want to discuss Britain & Eire or the "wrongs" of British imperialism, feel free to start threads pertaining to those subjects. I may even join in the debate.
Someone who says in Argentina that the Falkland belong to Britain, will get huffed. My opinion: Britain is a country to which it's much more better to be friend than to be foe, the same of USA. I'm not from Argentina, but I think Cristina Kirchner should put in the scales: which of these options is he best for Argentina: the natural resources of the Falklands or a good relation, or even a trade agreement, with Britain?
Is this that much of an issue in Argentina? I was under the impression it wasn't; hearing that they are trying to make a stink about it now was a surprise to me. I'm sure that a lot of it is just political posturing; I don't think they seriously believe England's just going to go, "you know what? You're right. Here, have at it" and no one is interested in a war.
It isnt. Most of the people doesnt care. Like me, most people think the islanders should decide. Most people does not care about those frozen island, is just a political issue used for the sometimes delusional president we have (and used in the past for other delusional presidents we had). Most people think of it as a political issues. Argentinian arent patriotic anyway, we dont even have a (serious) army!!!
Someone who says in Argentina that the Falkland belong to Britain, will get huffed. My opinion: Britain is a country to which it's much more better to be friend than to be foe, the same of USA. I'm not from Argentina, but I think Cristina Kirchner should put in the scales: which of these options is he best for Argentina: the natural resources of the Falklands or a good relation, or even a trade agreement, with Britain?
what does huffed mean? i dont know ONE SINGLE PERSON that thinks falkland islands should be argentinian, half the people i know think they should be brittish, half does not care. You dont know anything about argentinian culture if you think someone will get angry if you say falkland islands belong to britain, lol, the only thing argentinians get "patriotic" about is futbol and their futbol team.
And, btw, we have the 2 best players of futbol history: Maradona and Messi
what does huffed mean? i dont know ONE SINGLE PERSON that thinks falkland islands should be argentinian, half the people i know think they should be brittish, half does not care. You dont know anything about argentinian culture if you think someone will get angry if you say falkland islands belong to britain, lol, the only thing argentinians get "patriotic" about is futbol and their futbol team.
And, btw, we have the 2 best players of futbol history: Maradona and Messi:D
You are obviously too young to have seen Pele and Cruyff
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.
.
