OneWingedBird
Beloved of Ra
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2003
- Messages
- 15,431
It's really handy of the Argentinians to up the threat right when we have an election coming up.
Argentina is in a right mess with its basket case of an economy and a corrupt mad woman at the helm.
You would have thought the impoverished people may get a bit angry that Kirchner announced a £3 billion boost to their military spending in 2014 and is now planning to blow muchos pesos on Russian war planes.
If they treated their own people like that, how would the Falklanders have fared if Argentina had won the war?
You should have gone there at the time, perhaps you would have understood better.I guess were were kind of waiting for this. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8518982.stm
In the late 1980's I happened to be in the offices of a large oil company, and I saw loads of maps of the Falklands. In my naivety (sp?) then, I wondered why they were so interested in Pengiuns & Sheep. The answer was "why do you really think our forces travelled thousands of miles to "liberate" them".
I never forgot that.
Uh oh, here we go again...
Perhaps because they have been fed a distorted version of the truth? And quite possibly, in a relatively young country, they have no real idea of the sequence of long past historical events? The latter is a common enough issue in the US, where taught history dismisses colonial America much the way British history jumps from the Romans to William the Conk. - or did when I was at school.
Possibly, but what that doesn't explain it why the matter seems to be such a hot potato. We are dealing, after all, with a handful of remote islands hundreds of miles away from the Argentinian coastline. The islands have never been part of Argentina. The inhabitants of the islands are quite adamant that they want nothing to do wih Argentina. There is was no indigenous population claiming affinity with Argentina. Regardless of the quality of history teaching in Argentine schools, I simply cannot understand why so many people in what is otherwise a fairly sensible country have such a bee in their bonnet about it.
The Islands did change hand several ties. Last time, in 19th Century, the British took advantage of a situation where the Argentinian garrison was at odds with its homeland. The Argentinian troops and settlers were expelled.
The Islands are thousands of miles from the UK, but Guam is thousands of miles from the US and France have similar dependencies. Any International arbitration will be about mineral/oil/gas.
Okay, but from memory this was a (very) shortlived occupation. A bit of 19th century derring-do doesn't explain the apparent obsession with the territory today.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the islands well outside of Argentine territorial waters? In which case why should Argentina have any claim whatsoever on potential mineral or oil which may be found there? You may as well say that the French should have first dibs on any goodies found in the Channel Islands.
The Falklands thing strikes me as incredibly straightforward and the only reason Argentina's ludicrous claims are given the time of day is anti-West posturing.
Uh oh, here we go again...
Argentina urges UK to return to negotiating table over Falkland Islands
You're right but conflicting claims to where continental shelf areas intersect may be relevant to oil etc claims. It would certainly be important regarding Antarctica.
They want that oil, and they want to have Britain's little foothold in Antarctica.
I think that's what it's all about, really.
They want that oil, and they want to have Britain's little foothold in Antarctica.
Sheer greed. Not a return of land to its 'rightful owner'.
Don't.
I'm on a diet.
If you scroll back into history a bit, the islands have swapped about for quite some time, only finally' becoming part of the empire in about 1833. Nevertheless, there's about 3000 folk in those islands and while the UK should on the one hand respect this, a long cool look at the UK's history of colonisation suggest the UK might not be proud of this and historical colonisation doesn't really support a claim in today's climate.Whilst there's clearly vested interests in the mineral deposits off the coast of the Falklands, the existence of such interests are entirely irrelevant to the status of the islands.
The last referendum saw 99% of the islanders vote to remain British. Their self-determination should be respected. The only imperialists here are Argentinian.
we have no more claim to those islands as we do to India. Or Kenya. Or Zimbabwe if we're frank. Pick a pink part of the 'Empire' at will.