PDA

View Full Version : Who should they belong to?



Gen. Sandworm
01-30-2006, 02:28 PM
Im an outsider! Not try to spark problems. Just a question of opinion. Please debate nicely if you are so inclined Just curious of the feeling of each people. Please vote and say why you voted that way. If you object to this poll it will be noted and possibly deleted. This is just a curious question form an outside perspective.

Gen. Sandworm
01-30-2006, 02:31 PM
IMO they should be a member of whatever country they decide!

Firefly
01-30-2006, 02:37 PM
I agree, they should decide their own fate.

Dani
01-30-2006, 02:53 PM
Joined the last option (of the poll, of course :lol: )

Man of Stoat
01-30-2006, 04:28 PM
It should, of course, be entirely up to them. Although they have of course three options rather than 2 -- status quo, join Argentina, independence.

Interesting point that is probably relevant here:

If you want to go changing the ownership of territory because you object to its conquest more than 150 years ago, you'd better be consistent and apply that all over the world -- the question then becomes, how far back do you go? Even if we only go back to the Second World War, northern Poland should be returned to Germany, and most of the Borders in Central and Eastern Europe should be redrawn. If you want to go back even further, we could redraw all the European borders in completely different ways, depending on when you want to draw your cut-off date. And let's not forget that all of the Americas were obtained by conquest, shall we? Glasshouses and stones spring to mind...

Topor
01-30-2006, 08:53 PM
It's up to those who live there as to which direction they wish to take.

PzKpfw VI Tiger
01-30-2006, 10:28 PM
IMO they should be a member of whatever country they decide!

Agreed. Democracy is a wonderful thing.

1000ydstare
01-31-2006, 01:55 AM
Up to the Islanders.

BDL
01-31-2006, 02:15 AM
Up to the Islanders who they want to be part of.

Fuchs66
01-31-2006, 11:42 AM
I'd stick to the democratic side and let the Islanders decide.

Gen. Sandworm
01-31-2006, 02:15 PM
Well seems that we all agree on something! :D

Dani
01-31-2006, 02:34 PM
Still waiting for Eagle and Panzerknacker...

Cuts
01-31-2006, 06:21 PM
I voted in favour of the democratic decision too.

As at time of posting we're all in agreement, if anyone dissents it would be interesting to hear how they justify it.

Eagle
01-31-2006, 10:50 PM
Well, of course when you are choosing the last option you are only hiding your desires of keeping the archipelagos as british...

I was wondering what would happen if the most of the members would be argentine... because we know very much that the most of the members are from another country in this forum, are you agree?


Sorry to cut your INVICT, but my vote to Argentina.





The actual islanders stablished there by the force in 1833, removing the argentine population there. I've posted a large article that I've done here recording the anniversary, but the mods deleted it.

A self-determination right could be accepted where the population is a native, or the first population installed there, by pacific mediums, as happened in a lot of colonies which had been taken by the european countries the past centuries (the most of the african countries or middle east countries, when they got their independence accepted by the UN accepting their self-determinations rights), or nearer to me, the conflict between Argentina and Chile, about the claiming of the Beagle Channel's islands... the population of that islands (which were the first people who standed there) were asked about their nationality, and they said that they were chilean, and the argentine government had to accept it.



If the british islanders would be the firts inhabitants of the islands we would talking about another thing... but they invaded by the force a territory that was under a sovereign country flag, a country recognized by the same United Kingdom who invaded them.

Cuts
02-01-2006, 12:25 AM
If we accept that theory Eagle, are we limited to certain dates, or should we, as you suggest, follow the pattern that has emerged in Africa ?

If so, who would own the majority of South America ?

Or is that a different kettle of fish ?

Man of Stoat
02-01-2006, 03:13 AM
Hmmmmm. Self-determination only applies to natives, does it? Or by peaceful settlement?

So, given that Spain and Portugal conquered South America by force, that should mean that self-determination should not apply to the vast majority of the populations living there.

To be logically consistent, why aren't you also campaigning for Argentina to be given back to the Amerindians, and the population of European origin to be sent back to their native lands?

Or do you have double standards?

Firefly
02-01-2006, 04:51 AM
You see this is where it all gets tricky and double stardarded for me. Its perfectly OK for Argentina to claim the Falklands, but not for the original native population of Argentina to claim their country back?

Can anyone please explain to me why this is?

1000ydstare
02-01-2006, 12:21 PM
There is nobody alive today in Argentina that can even remember living in the Falklands.

The Islanders on the other hand have 5 or more generations of island history.

The claim the Argentines have is purely based on the proximity of the islands to Argentina, although they are outside the territorial waters.

Britains claim to the islands goes back centuries to before Argentina even existed.

The arguements used by the Argentine position is bordering on the absurd. At the end of the day, if you give the islands to the Argentines, then all countries would be forced to hand the countries back to the original native inhabitents and return whence they came. Spain, Portugal, Britian and France would be packed!!!!!

Just ask the Islanders what they want to do and have done. It nothing to do with how many people on this site are British or Argentine, it is to do with what the people in that location wish.

To do otherwise would mean that it would have been very fair for the Argentines to have had their declaration of independence laughed at by the rest of the world, and told that they would belong to the Spanish.

Crab_to_be
02-01-2006, 04:20 PM
Eagle is right in that I am quite amenable to the idea of national self determination (Who remembers this concept from Wilson's 14 points?) because I know what the result would be. However, I have yet to see any reasoned argument for why the islanders should be deprived of the opportunity.

Panzerknacker
02-01-2006, 09:30 PM
They should belong to Argentina.

I dont think that the Kelpers will be amused with the self determination idea, they probably prefer to stay as a British territory.

Eagle
02-01-2006, 10:13 PM
Hmmmmm. Self-determination only applies to natives, does it? Or by peaceful settlement?

So, given that Spain and Portugal conquered South America by force, that should mean that self-determination should not apply to the vast majority of the populations living there.

To be logically consistent, why aren't you also campaigning for Argentina to be given back to the Amerindians, and the population of European origin to be sent back to their native lands?

Or do you have double standards?


Of course when the european powers arrived to Europe, there wasn't any declared state here, and then the people who lived here decided that they prefered to be a different state than their "governors" from europe, prefering to share territories with the native population than belong to a thousands-mile far country. There were different ages, there is no similarities between the Malvinas invasion from 1833 with the American continent invasion between 1500 and 1600.

I repeat, in the Malvinas islands was a declared state, and what's more, a state accepted by the same country than decided to invade it.




When you talk about the Malvinas sovereignty you must not start from the rights of the actual population, you must read and know all the story from the islands...





1000yd, with your thoughts if a state decide to invade an entire continent and keeps it by 100 years, it has the true right of sovereignty over it??
If Hitler would won the war, in 2030 Germany would start in France and finish in the mid of Russia, and their inhabitants from the other side of Russia or all the resistance groups wouldn't have the right of claiming their territories because they didn't live in a free France, a free Russia, a free Belgium or a free Netherlands?

Another example... in the province of Cordoba there is a town where all the inhabitants feel themselves as germans. They were living there from more than a century. If we think as you think 1000, they would have the real right of make a german colony in the middle of Argentina?
They feel themselves germans, but they reckon that they are on an argentine territory. That's logic.


I do not doubt of the islander's nationality, they are british... but the archipelagos from the South Atlantic are Argentine. If they want to live on an argentine territory, they have that right as all free person. If they don't want to live on an argentine territory, they could go away to live to the British islands, or any place from the Commonwealth or wherever they want, but they must know that they are living on a real argentine territory.

1000ydstare
02-02-2006, 02:02 AM
I think you have missed my point there Eagle.

The point is yes, the world would be in chaos if we did that sort of thing.

Did Britain ever agree that Argentina owned the Islands? The UN may have allowed you to claim them but has Britain ever signed a document that says they didn't mind you having their islands?

The Islanders have lived there for nearly 200 years, they have their homes there, and thus any conclusion should revolve around them. If they wish to join Argentina then they can, if they wish to stay under the protection of Britain (which is about all we do for them) then they can.

Argentina is in no way hindered by not having the Islands and Britian is in no way inproved by owning hte islands. Theyare pretty neutral.

The only reason why the Argies want the Islands is because they feel agrieved in their national phyce that they were kicked off.

Oh, well. The Union Flag flies high over Port Stanley and probably will do as long as sensible people have a say in who should decide who should own the islands.

Man of Stoat
02-02-2006, 03:27 AM
Eagle,

Your entire argument as to why it is different basically revolves around the fact that there were no established "States" in South America in the European sense, so it was okay to beat up on the natives and establish European style states. Basically, because they didn't have a flag, it's okay to conquer them, but because the Argentine settlers on the Falklands did have a flag it's not okay. That is incredibly 16/17th century attitude!

Why was the large native civilisation in South America in the 16th and 17th centuries any less valid than a handful of settlers on the Falklands? Why is it perfectly okay to conquer one of them, but not the other?

You say that 1833 was different to the 16th and 17th centuries, well, then 1982/the present-day is also very different to 1833, so you can't go applying your logic from 1833 to the present-day situation.

Also, another large difference between the 1833 conquest of the islands and the earlier conquest by Spain of the mainland -- in 1833, the Brits arrived and told the islanders to poke off. In the 16th/17th centuries, Spain arrived on the mainland and killed huge numbers of natives and installed themselves.

Cuts
02-02-2006, 06:10 AM
Hmmmmm. Self-determination only applies to natives, does it? Or by peaceful settlement?

So, given that Spain and Portugal conquered South America by force, that should mean that self-determination should not apply to the vast majority of the populations living there.

To be logically consistent, why aren't you also campaigning for Argentina to be given back to the Amerindians, and the population of European origin to be sent back to their native lands?

Or do you have double standards?


Of course when the european powers arrived to Europe, there wasn't any declared state here, and then the people who lived here decided that they prefered to be a different state than their "governors" from europe, prefering to share territories with the native population than belong to a thousands-mile far country. There were different ages, there is no similarities between the Malvinas invasion from 1833 with the American continent invasion between 1500 and 1600.

I repeat, in the Malvinas islands was a declared state, and what's more, a state accepted by the same country than decided to invade it.

Taking your logic then Eagle, the present countries on the African continent should belong to the countries which colonised them.
Please suggest this to the present governments of those countries.




When you talk about the Malvinas sovereignty you must not start from the rights of the actual population, you must read and know all the story from the islands...
No mate, the rights of the population is the first and major concern !





1000yd, with your thoughts if a state decide to invade an entire continent and keeps it by 100 years, it has the true right of sovereignty over it??
If Hitler would won the war, in 2030 Germany would start in France and finish in the mid of Russia, and their inhabitants from the other side of Russia or all the resistance groups wouldn't have the right of claiming their territories because they didn't live in a free France, a free Russia, a free Belgium or a free Netherlands?
Hate to be the one to break it to you old chap, but Hitler actually lost the war, so the 'what if' situation is purely hypothetical and as such immaterial to the discussion.



Another example... in the province of Cordoba there is a town where all the inhabitants feel themselves as germans. They were living there from more than a century. If we think as you think 1000, they would have the real right of make a german colony in the middle of Argentina?
They feel themselves germans, but they reckon that they are on an argentine territory. That's logic.
Do you imagine that the present day German government woud accept their claim to be a part of Germany ? Hardly !



I do not doubt of the islander's nationality, they are british... but the archipelagos from the South Atlantic are Argentine.
This isn't a statement of fact, this is purely a point of view.



If they want to live on an argentine territory, they have that right as all free person. If they don't want to live on an argentine territory, they could go away to live to the British islands, or any place from the Commonwealth or wherever they want,
They don't have to, they already live on British territory.



but they must know that they are living on a real argentine territory.
Why must they know this ?
It's already been admirably demonstrated that this is not so.

Eagle
02-04-2006, 07:08 PM
1000ydstare said:


"Did Britain ever agree that Argentina owned the Islands? The UN may have allowed you to claim them but has Britain ever signed a document that says they didn't mind you having their islands?

Yes it did, in 1825, when recognized to Argentina as a free state and sovereign from all the territories that Argentina claimed as Argentine by those times, making no claimings from ANY territory.




The Islanders have lived there for nearly 200 years, they have their homes there, and thus any conclusion should revolve around them. If they wish to join Argentina then they can, if they wish to stay under the protection of Britain (which is about all we do for them) then they can."


As you said, the islanders have lived there for a lot of time, but the time not never remove the past. They could have been there from a thousand years but it doesn't remove the fact of how they did it, repelling people from a free recognized state.
About your declaration of IF THE ISLANDERS WISH TO BE PART FROM ARGENTINA THE CAN is only the last excuse that the United Kingdom have to keep the islands on its power. If the islanders would want to be a part from Argentina, (now when the United Kingdom knows that there's a large quantity of oil on the Malvinas basin, and possibly gold mines there) there would invent another excuse to keep that strategic important point, to control one of the two passing routes of Atlantic-Pacific, and of course his nearness with the Antarctica.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Man of stoat:


Your entire argument as to why it is different basically revolves around the fact that there were no established "States" in South America in the European sense, so it was okay to beat up on the natives and establish European style states. Basically, because they didn't have a flag, it's okay to conquer them, but because the Argentine settlers on the Falklands did have a flag it's not okay. That is incredibly 16/17th century attitude!


I don't know if you are trying to avoid the main point, but you know ver well that I wasn't talking about this. You must know that the entire world known in 16th centuries, or, clearer, the history is based on the world known from the european states. In the 16th and 17th there wasn't any recognized state by that europeans countries over America, was like to arrive to another planet for the europeans.
Then, in 19th century the same people who arrived to America on the 16/17 centuries didn't feel so european than before, they felt themselves as another nation, and there was when appeared the new recognized states, recognized by the european countries, where the actual history was forged, and then the United Nation was based to recognize the different sovereignties.



Why was the large native civilisation in South America in the 16th and 17th centuries any less valid than a handful of settlers on the Falklands? Why is it perfectly okay to conquer one of them, but not the other?

Yes, the continent was conquered by the european, and then those european who settled here prefered to be different countries than their government who managed an entire continent thousand miles far.
And the same happened with the Malvinas, they were colonied by spanish people until there evacuation in 1811 when the "Buenos Aires' May's Revolution" started, finishing with the independence from the most of american actual countries. Then the islands had been taken by the Argentine goverment, first sending a millitary group who put there an argentine flag, and then from 1825 started to populate them again. More than 100 argentine citizens were living on the Malvinas islands in 1833. They weren't natives, they were part from the new countries forged only decades before, with a recognized state, recognized by Europe, and recognized by the United Kingdom too, so you must not compare the british invasion to the Malvinas with the European (spanish, portuguese, british, dutch and french) conquer to the American continent.





You say that 1833 was different to the 16th and 17th centuries, well, then 1982/the present-day is also very different to 1833, so you can't go applying your logic from 1833 to the present-day situation

No it isn't different. First because the same free states involved remains as free states... in the 16th/17th centuries the world hadn't been known as was known in 1833, that was a world limited to the known lands, and that was only or european/some asian countries and its colonies, but in 1833 all that changed, since that there was quite similar than now talking about the countries histories.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cuts said:


Taking your logic then Eagle, the present countries on the African continent should belong to the countries which colonised them.
Please suggest this to the present governments of those countries

I don't know which part of my post are you talking about. Please explain me and I'll answer you.





Eagle wrote:
When you talk about the Malvinas sovereignty you must not start from the rights of the actual population, you must read and know all the story from the islands...

No mate, the rights of the population is the first and major concern !

Of course the rights of the population is the first, always when that population is a real population, not an invader.





Eagle wrote:
1000yd, with your thoughts if a state decide to invade an entire continent and keeps it by 100 years, it has the true right of sovereignty over it??
If Hitler would won the war, in 2030 Germany would start in France and finish in the mid of Russia, and their inhabitants from the other side of Russia or all the resistance groups wouldn't have the right of claiming their territories because they didn't live in a free France, a free Russia, a free Belgium or a free Netherlands?

Hate to be the one to break it to you old chap, but Hitler actually lost the war, so the 'what if' situation is purely hypothetical and as such immaterial to the discussion.


So, you don't know what to do and prefer to say that it was only an hypothetical example? well it was, but you must know that could happen if we follow that logic!





Eagle wrote:
Another example... in the province of Cordoba there is a town where all the inhabitants feel themselves as germans. They were living there from more than a century. If we think as you think 1000, they would have the real right of make a german colony in the middle of Argentina?
They feel themselves germans, but they reckon that they are on an argentine territory. That's logic.

Do you imagine that the present day German government woud accept their claim to be a part of Germany ? Hardly !

And again you don't know what to answer, so you prefer to write that phrases without real sense... Again, I was making an example about how illogical would be that, and, in fact, how illogical is the excuse of that the islanders were living in the Malvinas by more than 100 years.




They don't have to, they already live on British territory.

No mate you know very well that all the rights favors to Argentina, but as the UK is a power that have the possibility of control a lot of countries postures the UN recognizes its illogical "self-determination right"

Cuts
02-04-2006, 11:22 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cuts said:


Taking your logic then Eagle, the present countries on the African continent should belong to the countries which colonised them.
Please suggest this to the present governments of those countries

I don't know which part of my post are you talking about. Please explain me and I'll answer you.
I'll do better than that, I'll quote from the text :




Hmmmmm. Self-determination only applies to natives, does it? Or by peaceful settlement?

So, given that Spain and Portugal conquered South America by force, that should mean that self-determination should not apply to the vast majority of the populations living there.

To be logically consistent, why aren't you also campaigning for Argentina to be given back to the Amerindians, and the population of European origin to be sent back to their native lands?

Or do you have double standards?



Of course when the european powers arrived to Europe, there wasn't any declared state here, and then the people who lived here decided that they prefered to be a different state than their "governors" from europe, prefering to share territories with the native population than belong to a thousands-mile far country. There were different ages, there is no similarities between the Malvinas invasion from 1833 with the American continent invasion between 1500 and 1600.

I repeat, in the Malvinas islands was a declared state, and what's more, a state accepted by the same country than decided to invade it.
The part I put in bold text was that about which I was talking.

However you expand nicely on this here:


Why was the large native civilisation in South America in the 16th and 17th centuries any less valid than a handful of settlers on the Falklands? Why is it perfectly okay to conquer one of them, but not the other?

Yes, the continent was conquered by the european, and then those european who settled here prefered to be different countries than their government who managed an entire continent thousand miles far.
And the same happened with the Malvinas, they were colonied by spanish people until there evacuation in 1811 when the "Buenos Aires' May's Revolution" started, finishing with the independence from the most of american actual countries. Then the islands had been taken by the Argentine goverment, first sending a millitary group who put there an argentine flag, and then from 1825 started to populate them again. More than 100 argentine citizens were living on the Malvinas islands in 1833. They weren't natives, they were part from the new countries forged only decades before, with a recognized state, recognized by Europe, and recognized by the United Kingdom too, so you must not compare the british invasion to the Malvinas with the European (spanish, portuguese, british, dutch and french) conquer to the American continent.




The Islanders have lived there for nearly 200 years, they have their homes there, and thus any conclusion should revolve around them. If they wish to join Argentina then they can, if they wish to stay under the protection of Britain (which is about all we do for them) then they can."


As you said, the islanders have lived there for a lot of time, but the time not never remove the past. They could have been there from a thousand years but it doesn't remove the fact of how they did it, repelling people from a free recognized state.
So you believe all national borders in europe should be redrawn to those in force in, for example, 1809 ?








Eagle wrote:
When you talk about the Malvinas sovereignty you must not start from the rights of the actual population, you must read and know all the story from the islands...

No mate, the rights of the population is the first and major concern !

Of course the rights of the population is the first, always when that population is a real population, not an invader.
Well in that case why did you say, "you must not start from the rights of the actual population" ?
Your own words, the actual population, ie the people that are actually populating the islands.

If you wish to go down the historical route then I would once again refer to MoS' question.
You can't have it both ways.





Eagle wrote:
1000yd, with your thoughts if a state decide to invade an entire continent and keeps it by 100 years, it has the true right of sovereignty over it??
If Hitler would won the war, in 2030 Germany would start in France and finish in the mid of Russia, and their inhabitants from the other side of Russia or all the resistance groups wouldn't have the right of claiming their territories because they didn't live in a free France, a free Russia, a free Belgium or a free Netherlands?

Hate to be the one to break it to you old chap, but Hitler actually lost the war, so the 'what if' situation is purely hypothetical and as such immaterial to the discussion.


So, you don't know what to do and prefer to say that it was only an hypothetical example? well it was, but you must know that could happen if we follow that logic!
I knew exactly what to say, which is why I pointed out to you that these hypothetical 'what if' situations are ridiculous.
I wil follow your 'logic' to show you:
What if the Americans had invented a space ship and ray guns in WWII, then they'd rule the world and in 2030 Argentina, Australia, Germany and Russia would each be one of the United States.
I'm sure you'll agree it's a daft idea, no ?
Ergo the use of the 'what if' is a disingenuous red herring.





Eagle wrote:
Another example... in the province of Cordoba there is a town where all the inhabitants feel themselves as germans. They were living there from more than a century. If we think as you think 1000, they would have the real right of make a german colony in the middle of Argentina?
They feel themselves germans, but they reckon that they are on an argentine territory. That's logic.

Do you imagine that the present day German government woud accept their claim to be a part of Germany ? Hardly !

And again you don't know what to answer, so you prefer to write that phrases without real sense... Again, I was making an example about how illogical would be that, and, in fact, how illogical is the excuse of that the islanders were living in the Malvinas by more than 100 years.
Once again you make the erroneous assumption that you can read my mind.
My statement does make sense, if it seems odd to you then perhaps it may be in the translation to Spansh.
You didn't answer the question.






They don't have to, they already live on British territory.

No mate you know very well that all the rights favors to Argentina, but as the UK is a power that have the possibility of control a lot of countries postures the UN recognizes its illogical "self-determination right"
These 'rights' you champion are very selective in the way they are applied: only a tight time frame, only a certain area, only certain peoples - are you sure you don't want to add some more oddities ?



Edited once to phrase my points more clearly, once more for spelling, (I should proof read better !) and a third time to add this explanation of the edits.

Man of Stoat
02-05-2006, 03:57 AM
So Eagle has made it eminently clear that he considers it okay to take over the lands and countries of natives because they don't have recognised states in the European sense, but it is not okay to do exactly the same thing to people of European origin who claim to be part of a state in the European sense.

Not only is that a very 16th/17th-century attitude, is it not also rather racist?[/img]

Nickdfresh
02-19-2006, 12:22 AM
The people who live there should decide which country they belong too, not men with guns...

Lone Ranger
05-19-2007, 06:39 PM
Yes it did, in 1825, when recognized to Argentina as a free state and sovereign from all the territories that Argentina claimed as Argentine by those times, making no claimings from ANY territory.

Sorry but the historical record is quite clear in this respect, the British Government protested at Argentine claims of sovereignty in 1820. Show me evidence that any nation reconised Argentine claims, most nations simply ignored them.

Prior to the Falklands war, the British Government at best had an ambivalent attitude to the islands. They viewed the transfer of sovereignty as worth improved relations with Argentina. However, the islanders themselves never wanted it, despite attempts by the British Government to persuade them otherwise. There was no way that the Government could over-ride the islanders right of self-determination.

As far as I'm concerned whatever happens to the islands is down to the wishes of the people that live there.

royal744
05-21-2007, 06:17 PM
Let me ask some simple questions if I may.

What language do the Falkland Islanders speak?

What country do they feel they belong to? How many of the 2700 - 3000 Falkland Islanders are Argentinian?

What currency does the Falklands use?

When finally occupied by the British permanently (they were there before) in 1833, did Argentina exist as a separate nation?

Isn't it a fact that the "Malvinas" is named after a group of French settlers from St. Malo (Les Malouines) who settled there before the British?

Should the Falklands be offered to the French before it is offered to the Argentinians?

Isn't this all a fine bit of complete nonsense on the part of the Argentinians to simply take what is not theirs to take?

How is it possible for the Argentinians to speak of this when they have a giant pickle stuck in their mouths?

Those are my questions.

Jenkin
05-21-2007, 11:29 PM
They should decide how they want to be seen in the world, either as a independant country with their own individual democracy or become a part of a nearby country, but the base vieww is that their decisions are for the people of the island.

Gen. Sandworm
05-22-2007, 03:04 AM
How is it possible for the Argentinians to speak of this when they have a giant pickle stuck in their mouths?


Well on this one if its a joke I dont get it! If you were talking about the Danes I might find it funny. Would you like to explain or just I just skip to a formal warning?

alephh
05-26-2007, 01:47 PM
I'm surprised how popular the "They should be allowed to decide for themselves which 2 Nations they belong too" - option is.

Distance brings objectivity... or is it just "not caring" ;-)


_

BDL
05-27-2007, 05:41 AM
I'm surprised how popular the "They should be allowed to decide for themselves which 2 Nations they belong too" - option is.

Distance brings objectivity... or is it just "not caring" ;-)


_

No, it's the simple fact that the people living their should be allowed to determine their own futures democratically, just as everyone in the world should be allowed to.

Uyraell
03-19-2009, 05:56 AM
The Falkland Islanders of 1982 and the present day quite clearly consider themselves British, and have NO wish to be part of a state deriving from Spain. I find, in this, a remarkable parallel with the case of Gibraltar.
From the British perspective, of equal Strategic Importance, and not to be entrusted to another nation to administer.

Now; whether or not one agrees with the British perspective it is de facto that said populations have NO expressed wish to be other than Citizens of Britain, by a form of extension of the Principles of Commonwealth.

Given the above, quite plainly both territories should retain their ties with the UK to the degree desired by the resident populations, and should therefore, for all practical and legal purposes be considered as British, as is the case with the Pitcairn Islands, which can be viewed as being in broadly similar case, albeit without the involvement of a foreign, non-Commonwealth nation.

Regards, Uyraell.

reydelcastillo
03-21-2009, 09:39 AM
Answere : The Islanders , they are the ones born there - they are the natives -

Thoughts : Even though the Islanders are the ones to make the final decission , if they chose in the future to become part of Argentina - A three party talk must be held between Britain , Argentina and The Islanders to review all the details -

For example :

- If they chose to become part of the Argentianian Territory , the language should not change ( they were born speacking English ) ( the way they drive ( On the left side of the road ) should not be change -
We must considere them as Americans considere the Indian Reservations ( with all respect ) Rserervations have laws , rules and regulations of theire own - We Argentinians will like to have them back , but there must be a lot of things to talk about , and a lot of concessions Argentina should make -

Regards Enrique

redcoat
03-21-2009, 06:11 PM
I'm surprised how popular the "They should be allowed to decide for themselves which 2 Nations they belong too" - option is.
_
Its the guiding principle Of the United Nations, its called self determination.

redcoat
03-21-2009, 06:19 PM
They should belong to Argentina.

I dont think that the Kelpers will be amused with the self determination idea, they probably prefer to stay as a British territory.
You don't quite get the self determination principle do you :rolleyes:

Panzerknacker
03-21-2009, 11:02 PM
You don't quite get the self determination principle do you


Maybe I dont and maybe you dont quite understand the strong sentiment for the Malvinas that Argentines have.



We must considere them as Americans considere the Indian Reservations ( with all respect ) Reservations have laws , rules and regulations of theire own - We Argentinians will like to have them back , but there must be a lot of things to talk about , and a lot of concessions Argentina should make -



I think the only real change would be economic with the adoption of the argentine currency and tax redistribution system.
The language question is irrelevant, the argentine culture is so absorving that probably in 20 or 30 years most of the population will have the spanish and first language, and singing songs of La mona Gimenez :mrgreen:.

And in any case ( and this is for informing our beloved british members) the spanish is not "enforced" in any place, in any time or any law, it just happen to be the language talked by the majority of the Argentine people.
There are nearly 2 million italian speakers and 250.000 german speakers just to give some numbers.

However the percentage of spanish speakers in our country is biggest than Spain.

Why is that ? because spanish is part of the Argentine culture.

There are a lot muslims in our country but there is no people dress like in the muslims countries, there is a lot of races in our country but there are no racial problems.

Argentina is also the third jewish country behind the USA and Israel, but with the exception of some neighbourhood sin BA you wont see people with black suits an long beard s in any place.

Why is all that? Why I am explaining all this ? just to show how absorvent the argentine culture is.
In argentina everyone want to be ARGENTINE...that is the BIG difference and beauty of our country compared with others.

There is a place in Argentina for kelpers as in the same way that is there is a place for everything else. They are not better or worst that any of the millions of foreigners coming to our country since 1830s.

I dont know If Argentina will regain the islands again, there is a lot of probabilities that it
wont, but that will not change the fact that always going to be perceived as a lost territory, will not change the fact that many people outside Argentine feel that they should be ours too, will not change that fact that many people will be ready to lost the lives again trying to recover them and it will not change the fact that our goverment will be always putting pressure on the issue no matter the internal political or economical or cosmetical situation of the country.

If you ask an argentine person Who should they belong to? dont spect to be faced with long brainy historical analisis or tedious speeches to counter the "self determination" thing, he simply will answer "they should belong to Argentina", because that is the argentine sentiment, a sentiment imbedded in the argentine culture.

And being argentine myself I might ad that is the way it should be.

reydelcastillo
03-22-2009, 12:39 AM
Panzerknacker

I understand your point of view , I respect it and let me tell you something I saw over there and made me think about the islanders -

Few days before the combat began , i was heading towards Sapper Hill , went by town and saw a old man with a Land Rover , trying to drive on the left as he must all his life done so , on the street there was a big arrow facing the other way and we trying to drive on the right side of the road -

We state that the islands belong to us , British say they belong to them , but what about this man I saw all confused with his life upside down ?

We went to war because we were trying to recover them , but we never thought about consecuences on those that I call Natives , those born in the islands - I would say we did'nt even care about it , I think if we were to win that war , most probably we would have ship them back to England -

And its wrong , if were in the future to recover those islands by Diplomacy the first step is to win the islanders trust , we can not change their way of life by law - it will not work -

Great Britain will not give us back the islands just because they are too far away from London , or because it's a headache to supply them - If we think that way we are wrong -

We may get them back , when at one point in time the islanders get to trust us enough , when they know that they will be able to live a normal live under Argentine administration , when they feal that they are going to be protected by us - That will be the braking point in which we will have a chance to sit with British and Islanders to talk about the islands -

Be sure that the old man that I saw on his land rover will sit at the table and will have the final say on all this -

Reagrds Enrique

Uyraell
03-22-2009, 02:47 AM
Panzerknacker

I understand your point of view , I respect it and let me tell you something I saw over there and made me think about the islanders -

Few days before the combat began , i was heading towards Sapper Hill , went by town and saw a old man with a Land Rover , trying to drive on the left as he must all his life done so , on the street there was a big arrow facing the other way and we trying to drive on the right side of the road -

We state that the islands belong to us , British say they belong to them , but what about this man I saw all confused with his life upside down ?

We went to war because we were trying to recover them , but we never thought about consecuences on those that I call Natives , those born in the islands - I would say we did'nt even care about it , I think if we were to win that war , most probably we would have ship them back to England -

And its wrong , if were in the future to recover those islands by Diplomacy the first step is to win the islanders trust , we can not change their way of life by law - it will not work -

Great Britain will not give us back the islands just because they are too far away from London , or because it's a headache to supply them - If we think that way we are wrong -

We may get them back , when at one point in time the islanders get to trust us enough , when they know that they will be able to live a normal live under Argentine administration , when they feal that they are going to be protected by us - That will be the braking point in which we will have a chance to sit with British and Islanders to talk about the islands -

Be sure that the old man that I saw on his land rover will sit at the table and will have the final say on all this -

Reagrds Enrique
My Compliments to you, Enrique.
While I will maintain til I die the view I do, you reason the matter well.
For that, I Salute you.

Respectful Regards, Uyraell.

reydelcastillo
03-22-2009, 09:15 AM
Mr Uyraell

Thank You Sir for Your words
Very Kind of You

With all my Respect - Enrique

reydelcastillo
03-22-2009, 09:32 AM
The Argentine Culture -

Indeed there is an Argentine culture , with its traditions , with a welcome feeling to who would like to live in our Country -
But there are other Cultures out there besides our , There is the British Culture , the German Culture , the Chinese , the Japanese - And all of them are as good as ours is - And most of them are much older than ours -

The only Natives from the Islands are those few 2,000 or 3,000 that were born there , that must be already on their fourth or fifth generation and they are the ones that are going to make the decision on their future -

On our behalf the only wise thing we could do is to start earning their trust and respect , and it may be that in 20 or 30 years as you said , they will think in accepting an Argentinian administration because of economic advantage , because they do not feel any threat and because they will be able to drive on the left of the road at least in Stanley and its surrounding area ( preserve some of their culture and traditions ) -

Regards Enrique

pdf27
03-22-2009, 09:44 AM
Enrique, if the Argentine government had been as enlightened as you for the past century, the Falklands would have long since been renamed the Malvinas.

reydelcastillo
03-22-2009, 09:48 AM
Pdf27

Thank you Sir , I am not enlighted , it may be that I'm getting old -I have already seen too many things in life and I am understanding a little better how things are -

Regards Enrique

reydelcastillo
03-22-2009, 10:49 AM
Pdf27

Thank you Sir , I am not enlighted , it may be that I'm getting old -I have already seen too many things in life and I am understanding a little better how things are -

Regards Enrique


Small Correction here : "It may be that I'm getting old "-

Should say : 55 , and still with some music to play -

pdf27
03-22-2009, 04:34 PM
Small Correction here : "It may be that I'm getting old "-

Should say : 55 , and still with some music to play -
For far too many people getting older just strengthens bigotry rather than brings wisdom - as far too many of the other posts in this thread demonstrate.

reydelcastillo
03-22-2009, 07:00 PM
PDF27

Some years ago an old man told me :

Some people mature after everything else has failed -

Regards Enrique

Panzerknacker
03-23-2009, 09:44 AM
And its wrong , if were in the future to recover those islands by Diplomacy the first step is to win the islanders trust , we can not change their way of life by law - it will not work -

Great Britain will not give us back the islands just because they are too far away from London , or because it's a headache to supply them - If we think that way we are wrong -

We may get them back , when at one point in time the islanders get to trust us enough , when they know that they will be able to live a normal live under Argentine administration , when they feal that they are going to be protected by us - That will be the braking point in which we will have a chance to sit with British and Islanders to talk about the islands -

Be sure that the old man that I saw on his land rover will sit at the table and will have the final say on all this -

Reagrds Enrique


Well evidently some kind of agreement is needed, the cultural and historical links between Argentina and England were realy strong, unfortunately the war poisoned the relationship for ever.

II think is possible, considering the filth that world has become, with all the racial, religious and economical troubles pending over the western civilization war again between 2 great western countries like England and Argentina is crazy, and suicidal.

reydelcastillo
03-23-2009, 10:11 AM
Well evidently some kind of agreement is needed, the cultural and historical links between Argentina and England were realy strong, unfortunately the war poisoned the relationship for ever.

II think is possible, considering the filth that world has become, with all the racial, religious and economical troubles pending over the wesrtern civilization war again between 2 great western countries like England and Argentina is crazy, and suicidal.


Agree Agree Agree

in all with You Mr Panzerknacker

Regards Enrique

Lone Ranger
03-24-2009, 06:27 PM
If you ask an argentine person Who should they belong to? dont spect to be faced with long brainy historical analisis or tedious speeches to counter the "self determination" thing, he simply will answer "they should belong to Argentina", because that is the argentine sentiment, a sentiment imbedded in the argentine culture.

Why?


And being argentine myself I might ad that is the way it should be.

Why?

pulqui
04-03-2010, 09:50 PM
Why donīt you apply the same idea to Hong Kong?
Maybe the chinese are more respectful of Human Rights than Argentina?

Or the truth is that you make better business with China than with Argentina?

pdf27
04-04-2010, 02:43 AM
Why donīt you apply the same idea to Hong Kong?
Maybe the chinese are more respectful of Human Rights than Argentina?

Or the truth is that you make better business with China than with Argentina?
Neither. In Hong Kong, the New Territories (which just happened to include virtually all the water supply for the city, plus a very significant fraction of the business, and are coloured green on the map below) were always on a 99 year lease to the UK from China. When this lease expired, they had to be handed back to China. The rump of Hong Kong (about 5% of the land area) could not support the population it had without the New Territories, and hence would be extraordinarily difficult to keep. The decision was taken to hand it back as a whole, which meant that a "One Country, Two Systems" deal could be negotiated - giving those living in Hong Kong many more rights and priviledges than those living in mainland China. Indeed, they are far better off in Human Rights terms than those living in Argentina under the Junta.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/Hong_Kong_New_Territories.svg/800px-Hong_Kong_New_Territories.svg.png

Rising Sun*
04-04-2010, 12:05 PM
Why donīt you apply the same idea to Hong Kong?

Because Hong Kong was acquired by Britain under a lease, and returned to China when the lease ended.

Argentina was never in the same or a similar position in relation to the Falklands.



Maybe the chinese are more respectful of Human Rights than Argentina?

Maybe.

But at the time of the Falklands War the Argentinians probably were at least as bad as the Chinese, and perhaps more so as I don't recall much commentary on Chinese throwing dissidents into the ocean out of aeroplanes. Or wiring them up to electrocution machines.


Or the truth is that you make better business with China than with Argentina?

So far as Australia is concerned now, definitely.

In the 1980s'. About the same.

It may come as a great surprise to you, but Argentina does tend to lag a little behind China as the most desirable trade nation.

tankgeezer
04-04-2010, 06:11 PM
I think Donald Trump just bought them..

gumalangi
01-14-2012, 05:54 AM
I opt for self determination,. let the inhabitants choose their own fate :)

Panzerknacker
01-17-2012, 04:12 PM
The solution is a compromise that doesnt keep too happy to any of both parts involved, if the winner takes all it would never work.

downwithpeace
01-27-2012, 04:30 PM
The Island have been back in the news again since the oil explorations and certain South American countries stopping ships flying the Falklands flag from their ports, last I read the oil surveys weren't going well but even if they came back with nothing I doubt Argentina would loosen its claim.

Self determination is all well and good for the Islanders but no matter what they decide it won't effect the non picked countries claim.

royal744
08-29-2013, 06:08 PM
I do not doubt of the islander's nationality, they are british... but the archipelagos from the South Atlantic are Argentine. If they want to live on an argentine territory, they have that right as all free person. If they don't want to live on an argentine territory, they could go away to live to the British islands, or any place from the Commonwealth or wherever they want, but they must know that they are living on a real argentine territory.

Help me out here please. I'm a little baffled. Did Argentina exist as a nation when the British took over the Falklands? If it did not, what are the Argentinians talking about when they say the islands are "theirs"? Really? How can a nation which did not exist claim something it never owned in the first place?. Change that to "very" baffled.

royal744
08-29-2013, 07:10 PM
After re-reading all the posts in this thread, I have come away with the conclusion that the Argentinian position is not negotiable; nor is it rational in any logical framework I am aware of. If "facts" are not to be a part of the discussion, one has to wonder if "discussion" is a misnomer and unlikely to be fruitful. Ever. The Argentines are to logic and reason as two plus two are to five.

One thing seems abundantly clear to me. Should the Falkland Islanders ever vote for independence from the UK, and be stripped of its defenses, Argentina would invade the next day. Unfortunately, UN guarantees would be worthless.