OK I will fully agree that from a historical point of view, the Islands can be considered to have belonged to at least 3 countries over the last few hundred years.
We need to move the debate on I think. We are not going to get anywhere because no-one is budging here.
Im not saying might is right, but the last people to live on the Islands were British and they established a viable colony there when Britain had an empire.
What I am saying is that as the Islanders want to be British, why should they be forced to leave their homes?
This is a question that I would like answered Erwin, I know you have said that your family comes from Germany so it will be the same thing asking you to go to Germany right now. Those people have been there for generations.
I understand your argument and it is very good. However it fails because in 1 fundamental way it contradicts itself.
It presumes that the Argentine people have the right to break from Spain while at the same time claiming Argentina has the right to own the Falkland Islanders.
listening you i heard about,that my country was like a hotel for torturers and assasins.I find it very offensive,and,note that no all waffen-ss/ss were torturers,those who come here worked in a good form,and helped,for example to the military institutions,german colonies (from wich i have origin for example),and they helped too in working as builders and other works that were only for foreigners in the argentina of the 20 century.
if you think i insulted you,first,i was angry,and moderators are humans,we have our form to react in front of this situations.
you called too argies to us,brit isn´t a despective form,but argie yes,and worst because it was used in the war of 1982.You use the word argie very usually refering to me,and note that i used only one time roast beef,and that isn´t offensive as argie.I don´t think you can´t be angry if i call you “Island Ape” in lots of threads.
You have to note that im the only argentinian in this forum,except for that who posted 10 posts + or - and who wasn´t patriot,obviously,deducing from his ip,i think he is from the england town (a small “city” in a part of gran buenos aires with lots of brits).
Im afraid you don´t know that the mods are humans like you,and they react if you offend them.
this site was about education,when i was member in the early times,this was a quiet,peaceful and nice place,i think now there is a problem here,that wasn´t a long time ago.
Good point - a lot of the islanders can trace their families back 5 generations on the islands - how many Argentinians can do the same in Argentina?[/quote]
yes,im german,but germany never did nothing for me,and i never did nothing for germany,and i have inmigrated parents,they weren´t invaders,and they never were against local people,this country isn´t of germany,it´s still argentina.
i dk if argentine people lived or not for generation,im in buenos aires,i must go to tierra del fuego before asking this.
Good point - a lot of the islanders can trace their families back 5 generations on the islands - how many Argentinians can do the same in Argentina?[/quote]
yes,im german,but germany never did nothing for me,and i never did nothing for germany,and i have inmigrated parents,they weren´t invaders,and they never were against local people,this country isn´t of germany,it´s still argentina.
i dk if argentine people lived or not for generation,im in buenos aires,i must go to tierra del fuego before asking this.[/quote]
Well thats my whole point Erwin. You cant just ask people to end their way of life and go to a country they dont know, the Flaklanders have been there longer than your family has in Argentina.
the Spanish left the Islands in 1811, thereby leaving them on the open market again, as there were no settlers there. 4 years after that the Argentine state was formed. 4 years after becoming a sovereign state the Argentine state claimed the Islands NB not at the Handover or inception of the New Nation
8 years after that a garrison turned up.
Why declare sovereignty of the land four years after independence if its already part of the inheritance? (answer please)
I dont know.
From the time the Spanish settlers leave the Islands (leaving them uninhabited) it takes 8 years for Argentina to claim them, and then a further 8 years till an Argentine garrison gets there.
As a handover of territory goes:- leaving it unoccupied for 16 years suggests a poor level of planning.
Maybe we shouldnt have settled there if they were yours but. If you didnt want the British there you should have complained at teh time not 160 years later!
Just because you were doing well a while back doesnt grant you the right to the islands now.
Italian government to administer rule over all of western europe and North africa due to discovery of Roman “right to rule”
Essex county council to replace Westminster after discovery of Wat Tylers historic claim to rule.
Navajo Indian tribal council to replace Bush.
Australian Parliament replaced by Aboriginal elders.
Hstory is an Evolution you cannot ask to turn back or erase elements of it to suit your will. If you want to claim the islands you would hve to ignore the fact you failed to protect them and lost them. We acted in accordance with our wishes and committed no crimes in doing so.
I hope that clears up the elements of “inheritance” that you alude to.
With respect ID, I’m not sure that Magellan did in fact discover the islands, as his route is very clearly documented in historical charts and it followed the South American east coast, until he found the straits which now bear his name.
It would have been a sensible course to sail, to remain within sight of land, as he was trying to establish the extent of the continent now known as South America.
That he sailed 1000 Km out into the Atlantic is not only an odd claim, but it flies in the face of his logs !
I have heard that one of Ferdinand’s ships deserted him and returned to Spain. While it is true that a ship did indeed leave Magellan, there are no original documents that support any claim that it ever sighted the islands, much less established any settlement or even made a landfall.
Regards, Cuts.[/quote]
Yeah, you are right. Magallanes didn´t discover de islands.
The discovered of the islands should be attributed to Esteban Gómez, pilot of the expedition of Magellan. Esteban Gómez with the ship “San Antonio”, deserted of the strait of Magellan (the 01/11/1520), and arrived at Spain where was submitted to process May 6, 1521 .
Esteban Gómez tries to cross the Atlantic one taking the shortest road, in direction to the “Cabo Buena Esperanza”. According to the story of Gomez, situated to 300 miles of the Strait, they make out a group of islands “never seen” baptizing them with the name of San Antón, drawing them in a map that would collect then the cartographer Reinell, in 1523. That was like have been discovered the islands, and with their first name “San Antón”, then with the passing of years were called Islas Malvinas.
The map show us the Malvinas islands, so there isn´t any doubts, the islands were discovered by Spain.
Sorry, but don’t the Brits have the “effective occupation” at the minute?
If not, in that case, let’s look at A, B and C for Argentina:
A: Occupied originally by people who moved down the South American continent 10,000-odd years ago, who set up temples, tribal government etc. That fulfills your definition, no?
B: The occupation by the Spanish was certainly contested by the original inhabitants, until they were subdued by military force, terror, and succumbed to European diseases.
C: Argentina was discovered by the people who initially occupied it as in A above.
Therefore, by your definitions, argentinians of European descent have no territorial claim to Argentina and should give it back to the natives.
As far as I’m concerned, the only real argument over sovereignty is the wishes of the inhabitants themselves - do they wish to be British or Argentine? They had a referendum on this and resoundingly voted to remain British. Did they welcome the Argentinians as liberators? Hell, no! They ignored their newly imposed laws and continued to drive on the left and conduct official business in English (most can’t speak Spanish anyway).
Might I also quote the United Nations Charter, Article 1, section 2:
To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
Thus any talks over sovereignty against the wishes of the inhabitants infringes the UN Charter.
And I would uphold the same right for Wales, Scotland, Cornwall, or any part of the UK which wished to secede.[/quote]
Yes, brits are in “effective ocupation”, but that is because they got it by the force.
Remember that France, Spain and Argentina established a colony, not England.
When England was 8 years in the islands, didn´t make a colony they only established in the northwest of Malvinas in a few little islands.
France, Spain and Argentina established in “Soledad” (or East Falklands), then in “Gran Malvina” (West Falklands).
I understand your argument and it is very good. However it fails because in 1 fundamental way it contradicts itself.
It presumes that the Argentine people have the right to break from Spain while at the same time claiming Argentina has the right to own the Falkland Islanders.
Please explain to me why this should be?[/quote]
Firefly:
Iit´s difficult to explain, I´m not very good whit english, but i´ll try.
Here are two different things.
First, England stole the argentinian´s territories using the force and violence, and after 1833 Argentina claimed for the islands because its belonge form them.
England should back the islands to Aargentina.
Second, the situation with the “kelpers” is different, they are living in a territory which belong to Argentina but today we know are under the control of UK.
They are usurpation the islands too, becasue they went to Malvinas knowing that the islands didn´t belong to them.
Regards.
pd. i don´t have too much time now i ll explain this tomorrow.
If we follow your logic then we should hand the Islands back when Argentina is handed back to the people who had their land forcebly occupied by the Spanish.
Would I be right in suggesting that the majority of Argentines have an immigrant heritage. If you accuse the UK of stealing the Falkland Islands then you have to accept that your country was stolen from the natives who lived their prior to the spanish occupation.
That argument is not very convincing. If we look back in history and give every bit of land to the people who where origionally there, then its going to be chaos. So every American leave, exept for the Native Americans. The list is really endless, many pieces of land were taken by force!!!
if the aborigins are + or - 1 percent (note that from that 3% we have both mestizos and non-white groups),do you think it´s intelligent to give it to a population of 1% of aborigin,the country belongs to every who populates the argentina,see our national constitucíon.
you occupied part of the national territory,no all the republic,so,we still have our rights.
this is a different situation,please,don´t make confussion.
Sam,do you have british descendence?,i suppose that if you are from a british colony,you have the same ideas and information.I believe that you have to hear both sides my friend.
if the aborigins are + or - 1 percent (note that from that 3% we have both mestizos and non-white groups),do you think it´s intelligent to give it to a population of 1% of aborigin,the country belongs to every who populates the argentina,see our national constitucíon.
you occupied part of the national territory,no all the republic,so,we still have our rights.
this is a different situation,please,don´t make confussion.
Sam,do you have british descendence?,i suppose that if you are from a british colony,you have the same ideas and information.I believe that you have to hear both sides my friend.[/quote]
I dont know what the hell I am! Well what I was trying to say is that the Iris Duck arguement doesnt really fit. Hes saying give it back to Argentina because the British used force to take it. Well which country hasnt taken land by force!!?
but,the british don´t have enought reasons to probe their sovereignity,and less since we know that the guy who discovered the islands was Esteban Gómez, pilot of the expedition of Magellan,thanks to Irish Duck.
btw,south africans are african natives,british,and dutchs.
excuse me mate,i was in the error,i think irish duck has enough reasons (for ex,they were discovered by Esteban Gómez, pilot of the expedition of Magellan),and i don´t have more knowledgment of the war of the falklands except from my known patriotism.
OK so the Islands belong to the finder. Do’es either Gomez or magelan have any relitives living in Argentina. If they have then they could claim ownership of the Islands as they saw them first.
I know my heritage, on my mothers side I am second generation Irish immigrant but on my fathers side we have traced or ancestors back to 1203.
Many of the residents of the Falkland Islands can trace thier heritage back for 5-6 generations, longer than many Argentinians, particularly German immigrants from the 1940’s.
Again following your logic as Patagonia was settled by Welsh immigrants during the eighteen hundreds should this area be ceeded to the Welsh assembly.
The fact remains that the people who have lived on the Falkland Islands and can trace their heritage back for almost 200 years do not want to be Argentine and it is their view that the UN took into account in 1982.
I believe that Argentina missed the boat during WW2 had they supported the Allies following the US entry to the War in 1941 with the return of the Falklands being a previso or had Argentina supported the UK in 1939 we would have surrended soverenty gladly.
In todays political climate there is no chance of Argentina gaining soverenty of the Falkland Islands. Look at the lesson from 1982 Galtieri missjudged the situation, he did’nt think that the British govenment would be bothered enough to challenge him and that the US would stay out of the conflict. He was wrong on both counts. Rightly or wrongly , back in the 80’s Argentina was still remembered as being a safe haven for escaping War criminals. American public opinion was swayed by an influential news anchorman( his name escapes me but he was the one who reported from Hue during the tet offensive in 68) Who asked"where do’es America stand, with the ally who fought shoulder to shoulder through two world wars or the contry that wellcomed war criminals, It is time to get off the fence". Consequently British forces had access to US satterlite intel and political support.
Argentina would not gain support for another armed conflict and given the views of the Falkland Islanders would not have political support via the UN . I genuinely feel you missed you chance in the 1940’s so get over it!
I am firmly of the belief that Lagrebrew has. I dont give a damn about who has sovereignty over them, as long as the people want to be falklanders and not Argentinian they should be allowed to choose. It is after all their home.
Once again, why sould Argentina be allowed to be independant from Spain, but still think it can take over a free people? No one has convinced me on this so far and until they do I will let the people decide.
Should Norway re-claim the Shetland and Orkney isles?
Well what I was trying to say is that the Iris Duck arguement doesnt really fit. Hes saying give it back to Argentina because the British used force to take it. Well which country hasnt taken land by force!!?