Lately, I've been reading various articles on Argentina and their government's recent attempts to claim the Falkland Islands once again. Being an American who a) was born after the last Falklands showdown and b) isn't a Brit, I'm interested in what the British gents on this forum think about Argentina and the Falkland Islands. Do you think the British government will show Argentina who's boss this time around? Or is Argentina going to get their way?
Well considering the Falklands SHOULD belong to Argentina, no they aren't. It's the british that are being disrespectful.
How exactly should the Falkland Islands belong to Argentina considering the British claimed Terra Nulla Incognita then populated the islands?
Proximity, whcih is a valid claim as demonstrated by the PRC.
PRC? Publishing Resource Consortium, Piracy Reporting Centre?
Britain is much closer to Germany than the Falklands are to Argentina. Does it give them the right to invade? Twice?
People's Republic of China. Learn Geography and I'll start to take you seriously.
Writing to you from Ireland makes me want to remind you to not throw rocks around your glass house as you talk about Germany.
I'm not a historian by any account but I think Tibet's woes began back when the British convinced them to break from the old Chinese Empire. No time to google at moment. I'm sure someone will clarify for me.
I'm guessing with a name like Conway, Gary is probably of mixed heritage as well.
I may have an Irish name with Catholic roots and live on the Emerald Isle but as a Newf there is a lot of Bristol blood in me as well as Irish.
My feelings about the future of the Falklands actually come from my heritage. Like the Falklands, my island too has had it share of invaders. My home town of St. John's alone was taken by the French at least twice in the 1700s while there is now a pile of rocks that was once the French Newfoundland capital of Plaisance. I know this is the 21st century but I think history teaches us that nothing is carved in stone when it comes to ownership of territory. Usually the owner is the guy who can hold it.
Proximity is a valid claim for a nation to control another land?
I guess USA gets Canada because Canada is so close. Or wait, does Canada get the USA because of proximity?
ILLOGICAL! Whoever gets the Falklands is whoever is willing to fight longest for it. That's the way of History and the Old World. Few nations in History has ever actually made agreements to give territory back after occupying it forcefully. And they didn't have to.
I think the point of some isn't that Argentina gets it due to proximity but that they will be able to take and keep it due to being able to supply it easier. Being closer has its advantages.
True. Regardless of strategic advantage, the discussion here seems to be who has the 'right' to what...
If we boil history down to one simple algorithm: Regardless of how brutal, cold or harsh this is, all of history basically shows us that --
No one has to the right to anything they aren't willing or able to force others into backing off of what they are claiming a right too.
Now this will probably receive alot of responses of "people make compromises" or "that's just what imperialistic people say" or "spoken like a true dictator" etc.
Well, it is simply how history works. And people will say that that is just a justification for bad people wielding power.
Hitler invoked this basic rule of FORCE to get what he wanted for Germany. Guess what...the Good Guys (America, Britain, the Allies) Invoked the EXACT SAME RULE OF FORCE to make Germany submit.
Occasionally you will run into Civilized nations who believe in compromise and agreement and civil discourse, but even these nations must and rightfully resort to Force when necessary.
So in the end the same will occur with the Falklands. Whoever wants the Falklands the most and the longest will get the Falklands, be it the Argentines, the Brits, the "Falklandians" (?), or some other unidentified entity.