Will Britannia lose the Falklands ?

the UK has had de jure ownership since I believe the 1630's

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The difference, of course, is that the Falklands wasn't part of Argentina when the British colonized it - in fact, the country of Argentina didn't even exist at the time.

So, yeah, if the hypothetical scenario is that aliens from Proxima Centauri set up a colony in Pennsylvania when the area was uninhabited and unclaimed by any country, then sure, I would say it should be their territory for as long as they want to populate it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nice!!!

~String

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

the precusor to argintenia the united provences did settle their but those people ended up joining the british settlement in 1833.

 

pjdude1219 do you have something against the Shift key? Jus askin' is all....

 

I am fairly loose with with some aspects of grammar.

 

Sort of. After England and Spain both stopped bothering to enforce their claim to the island because they had other things to worry about, a pirate took the island over briefly in the name of the UP, used it as a base to plunder ships, and tried to start a prison colony for UP criminals. Eventually the US got pissed about him raiding US ships, so they sent the US Navy to sink him and destroy his new colony. The very small number of UP citizens were then absorbed into the island's mostly-British population. That was pretty much the end of the UP's control over the Falklands, if having a pirate ruling in in your name and dumping prisoners on it can really be called "control." The UP tried to send another guy over to take charge, but the islanders (who were mostly either of British descent and wanted to be British citizens, or ex-UP prisoners who weren't fond of the UP), just rebelled and killed the guy. The island was then basically governmentless until the British came back a few years later and took over again.

 

Its unlikely to either lose or give up the Falklands and there isn't really much that Argentina can do save complain about it. Their appeals to the UN will not give them much hope as the UK are on the security council and they cannot either afford nor have the might to win in another Falkland war.

Falklands belongs to the UK. Argentina's present complaint is driven by the oil newly found in the area.

 

Kind of quaint, echoes of a forgotten age, the British passion for this little smudge. Kind of sad really.

Chavez`s take:

:m:

 

If the Falklands are taken, the ghost of Margaret Thatcher will rise from the grave and haunt Argentina forever.

 

Ooh scary!

Of course, Chavez couldn't even prop up a neighboring nacroterror operation back when he was flush with cash, so there are good reasons nobody takes these threats seriously. This stuff is just posturing for internal consumption - a longtime Chavez specialty - to divert attention from the fact that he's bankrupted Venezuela. When you can't even keep the electricity flowing in a petrostate, you lack the credibility to threaten the UK with war.

 

Heh.

BTW. I have an updated (improved) avatar for you. :m:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Of course its posturing, no dispute there. Yet, its interesting the distaste for colonialism that these hombres display eh? I mean given their history and all. :m:

 

Bah, the Argentinean air force is still operating Mirage III variants, the RAF has Typhoons down there already...
The Argies should have stuck with their nuclear programme*, the '82 war may well have had a different outcome in that case.

* Yep, they had one in the fifties (and an indigenous jet combat aircraft industry - chief designer was no less than Kurt Tank, the man who designed the Focke Wulf 190 in WWII).

 

As to interest - no, not really. This sort of rhetoric about European colonialism has been boilerplate the hemisphere over - including the USA - for many, many generations. You may have heard of the Monroe Doctrine, for one prominent example? Likewise, the Chavez habit of siezing any opportunity to strike a pan-Latin posture in opposition to the US or any of our friends is quite stale by now.

As to distaste - again, no. The issue here is that Argentina wants the Falklands as their own colony. The only distaste here is for the UK, not colonialism as such. If anything, the weight of colonialist criticism should fall on Argentina, as they're the ones looking to violate the self-determination of the inhabitants of the islands in pursuit of oil riches.

 

The Falklands are hardly "colonialism". The people living there aren't colonists any more than the people living on Britain are "colonists" of Celtic, Roman, Jute, Norman, Norse and other sundry peoples. They are the permanent, legal residents of a land that have no "first people" to dispute the claim (a significant moral point).

The Falklands were barren rocks, wanted by almost nobody until the British asserted rule over them. And the people living there consider themselves to be British subjects and want very much to remain that way. This is the only fact that matters, unless you're okay with uprooting legitimate inhabitants without their consent. If this is the case, then you have some reviewing to do of your opinions of what Israel is doing to Palestine.

~String

 

Actually I'd say they are, under the vanilla dictionary definition of "colonialism."

But I'd agree that they don't fit with the connotations of "colonialism" as it is applied in the political discourses in question.

 

Hmmm. I think I clarified that point. Yes, at one point they were colonies. But the Falklands are colonies no more than California and Hawaii are American colonies. They are now firmly populated areas, with permanent residents who have lived their for several generations, with no displaced people.

So, I guess we don't disagree.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Even more, the point about Argentina wanting them as 21st century colonies is also true.

~String

 

Pah!
Looks like a model for wooly jumpers.

 

Given the distance from Britain, they fit the bill.

Good point.

I have not disputed this issue at all.

Thus this statement is unwarranted. :m: