Argentina echoes claim to Falkland Islands

[naaman fletcher]

Argentina's president has reiterated her country's historical claim to the Falkland Islands, three decades since the war with Britain over these remote islands in the South Atlantic.

Cristina Kirchner compared the claim to the islands with the Palestinian desire for statehood.

While Argentina lost the war, it has never given up its sovereignty claim over what it calls the Malvinas Islands.

http://www.aljazeera.com/video/americas/2011/12/2011127232512996731.html

I think it's rather offensive to the Palestinians to compare their just claim to the right of self-governance to Kirchners desire to oppress the people of the Falklands, who do not want to be ruled by Argentina.

[CJvR]

1. Rather amusing...

... the Argies needed to send convicts to the islands in their effort to colonize them, you couldn't pay the ordinary citizens enough to get them to move there willingly (the guards sent along with the prisoners mutenied).

[ocpagu]

2. Well...

If "people of the Falklands do not want to be ruled by Argentina" perhaps they shouldn't have moved the Argentinian coast.

[Bacchus39]

3. what??????????????? n/t

s

[ocpagu]

6. I said

"If "people of the Falklands do not want to be ruled by Argentina" perhaps they shouldn't have moved the Argentinian coast."

Did you understand it now?

[naaman fletcher]

4. huh?

What does that have to do with anything? Either you believe that people have a right to self determination or you don't. Clearly, you don't.

[ocpagu]

5. "Self determination" doesn't apply to Falklands.

The Falklanders are British. They're not native to the islands. Self-determination in this case is just a lousy excuse to justify late colonialism.

[CJvR]

7. Well...

...since the islands were uninhabited when they were discovered and originally settled by the French no one can play the native card ( other than the Falklanders themselves who have now lived there for generations ).

[ocpagu]

9. Exactly. No one can play the native card.

Inlcuding the Falklanders. So, no one can play the "self-determination" card either.

The Falklanders' wish of "remaining British" in a territory whose sovereignty is disputed is useless. Why? Because they shouldn't be there in first place. They expelled the Argentinian settlers in 1833 to take control of the islands.

[CJvR]

11. Well you...

...just admitted that the Argies have no business there either, so in that case things fall back on who is there now and how long they have been there. And the winner is the Falklanders and the UK and everyone knows it.

[ocpagu]

13. I actually believe that...

...things fall back on the quality of the possession claims and independent analysis of the historical background, timeline of possession, legislation, etc.

[CJvR]

19. Sure.

And the UK claim is vastly superior on all those points to those of Argentina.

[naaman fletcher]

15. what?

Nobody lived there when they arrived. Please describe to me the logic that Argentina has the right to rule these people.

[CJvR]

8. Moving?

The Argie "coast" have never included the Falklands, other than in the imagination of flag waving Argenitinian nationalists with imperial ambitions.

[ocpagu]

10. LOL... So Argentinians are the ones with "imperial ambitions"?

Not the United Kingdom, who claim to possess territories located thousands of kilometers away?

[CJvR]

12. It is not....

...the British who are so keen on invading and conquering territories where the population want nothing to do with them. Besides a brief look into Argentinian history reveals a long line of wars and expansions through history, the Falklands are simply the imperialist adventure that failed and the various Argentinian regimes have spent half a century whining over it.

[ocpagu]

14. Oh, the British WERE keen on invading and conquering territories...

Argentina did have wars and expansion through history, just like any major country in the world. But it was not an imperial power, like Britain.

Long after Spain and Portugal abandoned their imperial ambitions in South America and their colonies became independent countries, United Kingdom continued trying to establish colonies throughout the continent. They tried to take control of almost all the islands of the South Atlantic.

Including the archipelago of Trindade and Martim Vaz

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trindade_and_Martim_Vaz

Its history is quite similar to that of Falklands:

It was a Portuguese territory since 1502, but the British also claimed the archipelago to be under its possession since 1700, after Edmund Halley visited the islands. When Brazil became independent in 1822 it inherited Portugal's claim, but never occupied the islands. The exotic American author James Harden-Hickey also "claimed the island and declared himself as James I, Prince of Trinidad" in 1893.

The British once again occupied the islands in the 1890s, but Brazil was able to recover the archipelago by diplomatic means and then built a permanent base for the Brazilian Navy.

There are several examples very similar to Falklands related to many areas claimed to be British at some point in the past. The difference with Falklands is that the British still keep claiming that.

[naaman fletcher]

17. The difference

is that the people on the Island want to be British. Most of us believe that people have the right to self-determination. You do not.

[CJvR]

20. Simillar...

...except those islands are completly uninhabited, other than a military outpost established recently. On the Falklands you have a permanent population that have resided there for some 10 generations under continous British rule for one and a half century - a tiny bit different than uninhabited rocks. Rather amusingly London was desperatly trying to give the islands away in 82 when the Argentinian junta decided to to wave their dicks and go conquering instead of waiting for a handover, and then Argentina sulkingly imposed an embargo when the British won the war. The Falklands are only an issue because various Argentinian regimes have chosen to make it one so that they always have an excuse available to cover up their incompetence.

[ChangoLoa]

22. "It is not the British who are so keen on invading and conquering territories where the population

want nothing to do with them"

Irony?

Sounds like "It is not the Argentinians who win a World Cup 1/4 final with a goal made with the hand, and then call it the hand of God!"

[naaman fletcher]

16. Yes..

Argentina want to rule people it has no claim over. The fact that the British have done that in the past doesn't mean Argentina isn't doing it now.

Why don't you just say "look, i just hate the British so I am on the side of Argentina".

[ocpagu]

18. Because I don't hate the British.

If I hated the British I probably wouldn't spend seven years of my life learning (or trying to learn) their language, studying their culture, etc. There's no country in this world that I hate. In fact, the Anglophone peoples, cultures, countries and societies have been object of my curiosity, admiration and study and work for a long time. I worked very hard during 3 years when I was a teenager to save money to study in the United States, for example. We gotta stop assuming that every criticism toward a country or a society is a manifestation of hate.

[naaman fletcher]

21. thanks for the response

I was not clear. I didn't mean hate in a racial hatred sort of way, but rather in a historical/political sort of way. And why not? How many millions were killed because of their colonial policies? I believe if you added it all up it is well over what Germany did.. I think Indian alone was probably more than Germany.

[ChangoLoa]

23. Ah you studied in the US... burguesinho!

:hi: