Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Banned
Original Poster
#1 Old 28th Dec 2014 at 9:20 PM
Default Are the Falklands Rightfully Argentinian?
The Patagonia Part 2 episode of Top Gear finished a few minutes ago. The ending was intense - the crew were attacked as they escaped Tierra Del Fuego into Chile. They were even forced to abandon the 'star cars' as a member of the crew (probably called Gavin) called them, due to trouble magnets, not to burn. The crew even had to come back to Chile the way they came without the truck ferry. The extent of the damage may be aesthetic, many smashed windows and a few injuries, but the political damage had been done. No Briton would ever want to go there ever again after seeing this episode.

This is why this topic has been posted. I believe that Argentina should have the Falklands back to prevent something like this happen again. Seriously, someone could have been killed because the Argentinians in those parts hate the British, especially if they were filming something. While I am a Briton myself, the Falklands War of 1982 is clearly a war that should have been won by the Argentinians. But either way, if there was still a war, TG would still be attacked. I can say though, the license plates were not of much trouble as far as I saw on the TV

So British and others alike, do the Falkland Islands really belong to the British?
Advertisement
Field Researcher
#2 Old 28th Dec 2014 at 10:00 PM
I don't know why people make a war about those little islands... But people in the Falklands/Malvinas voted to belong to England instead of Argentina. However, there's two islands, so, Why don't divide them between the two countries?
Lab Assistant
#3 Old 29th Dec 2014 at 12:42 AM
The Falklands are most important due to their geographic position. They mark the British zone of influence in Antarctica. To loose them would mean to loose the whole part of a continent with possibly very rich resources.

I think, if I would have enough money to be interested in such plannings, and if I would be British, maybe then I would easily understand the position of the British government. But then I also would always pay them to decide positive for me. And if the government has to fight a war for it, well then - there are enough young people in every land to die for the interests of a few. And a war will be payed by the poor mostly. So what?
Field Researcher
#4 Old 29th Dec 2014 at 1:11 AM
Decide this question through a war is obviously a stupidity. First: war is always stupid. Second: Well, Argentina just can't win a war against England. Is the same as a pokemon battle where a bulbasaur fights a charizard!
Lab Assistant
#5 Old 29th Dec 2014 at 8:23 PM Last edited by AzemOcram : 31st Dec 2014 at 4:07 PM.
That is evidence that Argentines are often not good people (most people in Latin America agree) and not that England is bad. The top gear people did nothing wrong while the Argentines acted violently against innocents.

--Ocram

Always do your best.
Theorist
#6 Old 29th Dec 2014 at 10:43 PM Last edited by Mistermook : 30th Dec 2014 at 5:20 AM.
First of all, the whole notion of "righteousness" in sovereignty issues is frail. It's not about righteousness. Is the USA "rightfully" USA-ian? We took it from the Native Americans. Ireland and Scotland - "rightfully" part of the UK? For that matter, are Spain and France "rightfully" Italian thanks to the Romans?

We're talking about deep sovereign states issues here. Whether it's comfortable or not, the answer whether or not something is "rightfully" anything is generally a matter of "did you take it?" and "can you keep it?" It's solid, Statesmanship 101 fundamentals, where might makes right. We're just lucky (or perhaps unlucky) these days where there's enough of a state-level political consensus-seeking impetus that we've got other issues like "So you've 'taken' Crimea, you can keep it, will the world make it so that you still want it?" But basically it always amounts to "who can kill enough people to keep the land."

Argentina's a lot closer to the Falklands, but the UK has twice the number of active duty military than Argentina, better soldiers - regularly noted as some of the best in the world, and the sort of amazing war-tech that you get from being best chums with the US for many, many years. And that's not even getting into its host of allies, which (*cough* USA *cough*) I don't have to explain in great detail why they've got the advantage in that list, right? Even allowing for the rest of the world not "being on Britain's side" they're unlikely to, in any conflict, actively speak out against Britain except for political points in some other arena that have absolutely nothing to do with "our great and lovely friends, Argentina."

So, tldr, the Falklands are British. Argentina would be a bunch of morons to pick that particular fight for any reason other than a complete dismissal of reason and utter disregard for their own self-interests. It's not even a particularly interesting question as such questions go - for sovereignty issues regarding British overseas territories with weight to them: Gibraltar. That's someplace worth fighting over.
Field Researcher
#7 Old 30th Dec 2014 at 12:21 AM
Quote: Originally posted by AzemOcram
That is evidence that Argentinians are usually not good people (most people in Latin America agree) and not that England is bad.

--Ocram


I like Argentina and its people. The fact is Argentina can't stand a fight against the britains... I don't think right to define a whole country in stereotypes, because this is not accurate. For example: I break all stereotypes that people think about my country in all possible aspects.
Forum Resident
#8 Old 30th Dec 2014 at 6:30 AM
Time for a little history lesson...

Unlike many parts of the world, where people have lived for thousands of years, the Falklands Islands were deserted for a very long time. They are several hundred kilometres away from Argentina and Chile, so it's not like the native inhabitants knew they were there or wanted to try to get to them. Once Europeans started sailing around the world, they were discovered and claimed by the British, France and Spain at various points. Each of those nations started settlements, sometimes simultaneously without realising the others were there, but all three removed their citizens after a while as the settlements weren't successful. France handed over its claim to Spain as part of a peace treaty.

When Argentina became independent of Spain, they claimed all of the islands in the South Atlantic that had been claimed by Spain. In 1823, the new Argentinian government issued permits to a man called Luis Vernet to settle on the islands and fish in their waters. This settlement was more successful, until he tried to stop US fishing and whaling boats in the area. The US didn't think he (and by extension, Argentina) had any right to control fishing, and so the settlement was raided by a US ship in 1831. The following year, in 1832, the British arrived on the islands to reassert their claim. The islands have been controlled by Britain ever since, apart from a couple of months during the Falklands War.

So altogether, Argentina controlled the islands for 9 years. Britain has controlled them for 178 years, and the inhabitants regularly vote to remain British by an overwhelming majority. The Argentinians are not the "native inhabitants" by any stretch of the imagination (in fact, French, British and Spanish people lived there earlier), and 300+ km is not "nearby". If the locals don't want to be Argentinian, and they don't, then they shouldn't be.

And Mistermook I certainly agree - Gibraltar is a much more difficult question...
Guest
#9 Old 14th Jan 2015 at 2:01 AM
I donno which country should claim it.

Is it worth killing people over? Pretty sure it isn't.
 
Back to top