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.
[quote]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 ! [/quote]
Of course the rights of the population is the first, always when that population is a real population, not an invader.
[quote]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. [/quote]
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!
[quote]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 ! [/quote]
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”
