Yes, both times. It's the first time (1833) that you keep on forgetting. Rule Britannia! To hell with anyone who has the misfortune of getting in the way.
Las Malvinas son Argentinas
JoinedPosts by Las Malvinas son Argentinas
-
182
David Cameron Confronts Cristina Fernandez (UK v Argentina)
by cofty incameron briefly confronted the argentine president cristina fernandez de kirchner when they met at the g20 meeting in mexico today.. the prime minister told ms fernandez she should "respect the views" of islanders who are taking part in a referendum on the issue of control.
- read more at bbc.... i never thought i would offer praise of a tory leader but hey credit where its due..
-
-
-
182
David Cameron Confronts Cristina Fernandez (UK v Argentina)
by cofty incameron briefly confronted the argentine president cristina fernandez de kirchner when they met at the g20 meeting in mexico today.. the prime minister told ms fernandez she should "respect the views" of islanders who are taking part in a referendum on the issue of control.
- read more at bbc.... i never thought i would offer praise of a tory leader but hey credit where its due..
-
-
Las Malvinas son Argentinas
Where'd you find that map? Most maps have 'Islas Malvinas' in brackets underneath 'Falklands'. I can post a map too with the desired results. But why bother? What does it prove? Geo-political posturing? The map you posted looks like it was pulled from a grade school textbook.
The people might be yours, but the land is ours. At one point in time, the British Foreign Office agreed with that assessment. When it became obvious that you couldn't amputate the occupants from the land, the tone suddenly changed.
-
182
David Cameron Confronts Cristina Fernandez (UK v Argentina)
by cofty incameron briefly confronted the argentine president cristina fernandez de kirchner when they met at the g20 meeting in mexico today.. the prime minister told ms fernandez she should "respect the views" of islanders who are taking part in a referendum on the issue of control.
- read more at bbc.... i never thought i would offer praise of a tory leader but hey credit where its due..
-
-
Las Malvinas son Argentinas
I answered your question in a succinct manner, but I guess you need an answer with more detail. I have a personal connection to this dispute. My father fought in the Malvinas War. Many did not come back, and even more are traumatised by the experience. La nación a sus héroes. When I look at the history involved, it was an unnecessary war in two ways. The junta that planned and executed it was desperate and misinformed. It guaranteed continued British control, rather than advance a claim in a better light. The second reason is that there was no logical reason why Britain needed these islands in the first place. A lot of suffering has resulted due to imperial exploits. It makes a difference to me because I love my country, and see this land as a integral part of my own. I hope this explains it better for you.
-
182
David Cameron Confronts Cristina Fernandez (UK v Argentina)
by cofty incameron briefly confronted the argentine president cristina fernandez de kirchner when they met at the g20 meeting in mexico today.. the prime minister told ms fernandez she should "respect the views" of islanders who are taking part in a referendum on the issue of control.
- read more at bbc.... i never thought i would offer praise of a tory leader but hey credit where its due..
-
-
Las Malvinas son Argentinas
Thus the Argentine argument for the Malvinas became less potent due to the time involved. The self-determination principle is a strong one, but it's also the only one on that side. The colonial takeover of the Americas is a deeper issue altogether. The British sack of the Argentine garrison at Puerto Luis was unecessary and consisted of a more naked colonial aggression. They seemed to have wanted them just for the sake of having them. The colonies in North America were established to shelter religious refugees. What were the Falklands about? They didn't even know what to do with them until decades later.
I would hope that our worldwide community is based on laws set down in the Geneva and Hague conventions. It's still a valid legal title, and one which can be solved a lot easier than inviting the Incas, Aztecs, and the Aborigines back to the negotiating table.
The Malvinas were the only dish on our plate. Take an introspective look at the world map and you'll see what I mean by 'buffet'.
-
182
David Cameron Confronts Cristina Fernandez (UK v Argentina)
by cofty incameron briefly confronted the argentine president cristina fernandez de kirchner when they met at the g20 meeting in mexico today.. the prime minister told ms fernandez she should "respect the views" of islanders who are taking part in a referendum on the issue of control.
- read more at bbc.... i never thought i would offer praise of a tory leader but hey credit where its due..
-
-
Las Malvinas son Argentinas
Actually, the UK still has a significant slice of Ireland that it keeps under the guise of 'self-determination'. The Ulster Plantations were founded in what was once the most Gaelic section of Ireland. It is not me who needs to come to terms with imperialism. Your comments betray a particular apologist nature.
I was referring to the legality of settling a land militarily conquered, not just a blanket conparison to Israel/Palestine. Is a settler population a legal precursor to owning the land under international law? That's the question which was posed. Since the answer is obviously no, then it comes as no surprise as to why I can't get a straight answer on that one.
To say that the Malvinas were already established as British conveniently ignores the Treaty of Utrecht and the agreement Lord North signed with the Spanish government. How can British title to the land be 'established' when sovereignty was renounced several times by treaty, and all they had to prove it was a short lived military post at Port Egmont? There was no British establishment in the Malvinas. If there was, then why did they have to go to Puerto Luis, a settlement the British had absolutely no connection with to take formal control of the islands? If they were simply re-establishing sovereignty on deserted islands, then why didn't they go back to Port Egmont and do it? To do so would ignore the Argentine garrison at Puerto Luis.
Though it certainly wasn't intended as a compliment, I am flattered to be compared to an accomplished woman, regardless of my disagreement with a few of her stances on the issues. Fernandez is simply doing her job - representing the people of Argentina. People act like she's taking a pistol into international conferences. All she was doing is bringing documents to support her position on talks. Her confrontation with Cameron was initiated by him. If you read the Spanish language materials on the meeting, you get the distinct impression that Fernandez didn't want to bring up the issue directly to Cameron. He forced the issue, and taken aback, she tried to hand him documents. It's apparent that she wasn't prepared for such a confrontation. I don't know why she didn't accept the letter from the islanders. I would guess that she felt that to accept it would be a tacit acknowledgement of the FI government, which Argentina does not recognise. Since we do recognise the UK, that was the more appropriate channel. But since I am not Fernandez, I can't speak for her anymore than you can speak for Cameron.
I trust Simon Jenkins as an authority on the matter sue to his diligent research into the Foreign Office's own admissions on the subject. It's not like he's just some random jounalist. My point is, you can't paint everyone who supports the Argentine position as a propagandist. You might even say that today, Fernandez has more support for their position than Cameron does. It's not an issue that is going away, as much as some would like it to. Our history is short, and 1833 is our defining point as a nation. A foreign power took what was naturally and legally ours, and this injustice continues to this day. What seems to others as a strange and misguided attempt to right historical wrongs, this is a flesh and blood issue for us. It's quite easy to 'move on' when your imperial stamp is an established fact on most of the world. Others don't have that luxury.
-
182
David Cameron Confronts Cristina Fernandez (UK v Argentina)
by cofty incameron briefly confronted the argentine president cristina fernandez de kirchner when they met at the g20 meeting in mexico today.. the prime minister told ms fernandez she should "respect the views" of islanders who are taking part in a referendum on the issue of control.
- read more at bbc.... i never thought i would offer praise of a tory leader but hey credit where its due..
-
-
Las Malvinas son Argentinas
I give a damn because the world is not a buffet table where you can take as much as you want. I've been to this 'rock' you speak of. Have you? Defend your imperial adventures all you want. Attack the messenger as a government propagandist at your pleasure. There are many outside my country who have no connection to the place that feel the same way as I do. If that's the case, then Argentina must have a pretty large payroll.
-
182
David Cameron Confronts Cristina Fernandez (UK v Argentina)
by cofty incameron briefly confronted the argentine president cristina fernandez de kirchner when they met at the g20 meeting in mexico today.. the prime minister told ms fernandez she should "respect the views" of islanders who are taking part in a referendum on the issue of control.
- read more at bbc.... i never thought i would offer praise of a tory leader but hey credit where its due..
-
-
Las Malvinas son Argentinas
Ah, the false logic of 'you guys did it too, way back when'. I love it when the greatest offenders of imperialism try to teach a lesson in morality to a republic founded in revolt to her own colonial masters. The Incan empire only touched a small portion of the northwest, BTW. Argentina was largely devoid of indigenous population, which is reflected in our largely European ancestry. So sure, we'll settle the bill with the 'Incas', so as long as you settle your debts with... hmm, let's see... the list is pretty long there and is a hodge-podge of North American Indians, Africans, Aborigines, Polynesians and... well, you get the point. Fine, we are all guilty of a colonial transgression at one point or another. Argentina is guilty by association with the Spanish Viceroyalty, but I'm confident that there is scant reference then or now to an Argentine "Empire". I can think of one empire that has had quite a few imperial adventures with Argentina. Hmmm.... the name eludes me right now.
Administration and sovereignty are two different things. You can have a British administration which runs local affairs, with a parent government which handles all external affairs. Kind of like the current situation with the Malvinas. But hey, looks like the folks there don't want it. Forcing it on them and expressing an opinion that the legal title to that land is dubious are two different things. So if we in Argentina ever have to deal with an 'Incan' revolt, then I guess we had it coming. Likewise, when you see Argentines complaining about the Malvinas, you can chalk it up to the same principle. It's the price you pay for settling on disputed land.
I suppose the poor Palestinians have a good 60 or so years left on all claims of sovereignty in their land, since by then all Palestinians directly displaced by the Israelis would be in the ground by then. What a noble concept. Kick people out from their land, ship in your own people, and take a vote after all refugees have turned to dust.
-
182
David Cameron Confronts Cristina Fernandez (UK v Argentina)
by cofty incameron briefly confronted the argentine president cristina fernandez de kirchner when they met at the g20 meeting in mexico today.. the prime minister told ms fernandez she should "respect the views" of islanders who are taking part in a referendum on the issue of control.
- read more at bbc.... i never thought i would offer praise of a tory leader but hey credit where its due..
-
-
Las Malvinas son Argentinas
Israel/Palestine is the same principle, different century. It is not an exact equivalence in the historical sense, but has similarities with the concept of settling militarily conquered land. This is why we had so much fuss over whether or not the invasion of 1833 happened or not. According to the internal memos of the British Foreign Office, it did. Once you establish that there was an invasion and subsequent occupation of land, then the morality behind the entire venture is questionable. Israel/Palestine is on a much bigger world stage and involves thousands of more people, so how about I refine the analogy to a more smaller and suitable level? There are a few thousand Israeli settlers in the Syrian Golan Heights. Should a referendum be held, Israel would likely be the winner. It still doesn't morally make the territory Israeli by popular vote.
That the 1982 invasion was a mistake is logic I can buy into. It certainly didn't accomplish anything but guarantee that the British are holding onto the territory. A simple case of messing with the bull and getting the horns. Asking nicely would have been a more feasible option. Our bad. We did lose 323 civilians and soldiers on the ARA General Belgrano when it was both outside the British declared exclusion zone and was headed back to port. But oh the casualties and feebleness of war...
-
182
David Cameron Confronts Cristina Fernandez (UK v Argentina)
by cofty incameron briefly confronted the argentine president cristina fernandez de kirchner when they met at the g20 meeting in mexico today.. the prime minister told ms fernandez she should "respect the views" of islanders who are taking part in a referendum on the issue of control.
- read more at bbc.... i never thought i would offer praise of a tory leader but hey credit where its due..
-
-
Las Malvinas son Argentinas
I answered your question. Since the legal title to the land was dubious in the first place, this brings up several issues which have been subsequently glossed over. If the islanders want British administration, then they can have it. But sovereignty belongs to Argentina. When the maps are drawn up, they should be called "Malvinas/Falklands" with the flag of the Sun of May prominent. The same way sovereignty would still belong to the UK should any third party decide to occupy and populate a sparsely inhabited or uninhabited adjacent British island. Military conquest doesn't establish legality. Israeli settlements were built on mostly unused Palestinian communal farming land. Does that make the settlements legitimate and therefore the settlers entitled to a vote? Of course none of the Spanish/Argentines from the removal are still alive. That wasn't a serious question. It doesn't change the fact that they were forcibly evicted by a country which had abandoned the same islands and renounced her sovereignty several times over before unilaterally deciding she wanted them again.
Colonialism is indeed a loaded word, designed to draw the reader to a desired conclusion. There are different lengths to which it was applied. The British, Spanish, French, Dutch, Portuguese, and later the Germans and Belgians are all guilty of it. The Napoleonic Wars put an end to most of Spain's colonial ambitions, and her former colonies rose up in revolt. It was within this vacuum that the unique nature of the Malvinas dispute comes into play. Since they had no native population, the rights to the Malvinas came with which country actually settled the country. We can talk all day about the indigenous population of the Americas if we want, but it only amounts to a boiling pot of psuedo-logic designed to distract from the real issue. The French settled Isla Soledad, sold their rights to the Spanish, and was ruled out of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata. Argentina next took control over the Malvinas after a short gap, and it was only after the residents were forcibly removed by the Americans and finally by the Royal Navy in 1833 that this control ceased. Two wrongs don't make a right. There was no reason other than control of strategic islands and implantation of a new colony that we have this situation today. That is why I dub it colonialism at its worst. There was simply no excuse for it, and it was a blatant act of dispossession.
I realise that the prevailing opinion is that it's just a 'rock' as Diest put it. Then let's apply this principle to its greatest extent. Find the most forlorn 'rock' that you own, and give it to us. But I'd much rather have the 'rock' that is actually ours. Nuestra Malvinas.
Forums are made for discussion. It's not easy for some to hear a contrary viewpoint. I hear them all the time here about the Malvinas. Some are reasoned arguments, while others are lacking for quality and substance, while playing around with facts. It amuses me to no end about how many British intellectuals, journalists, historians, and public figures share much of the same feelings as I have about the Malvinas. To add to that chorus, we have a steady retinue of 'neutrals' such as Obama, Clinton, Scty. General Ban Yi Moon, and Vladimir Putin, who espouse the same argument that the much maligned Cristina Fernandez is taking to the court of world opinion. There's a legitimate dispute regarding the islands. Let's talk. Unfortunately, according to Simon Jenkins' opinion piece in the Guardian, 3000 people hold an effective veto over British foreign policy.
-
182
David Cameron Confronts Cristina Fernandez (UK v Argentina)
by cofty incameron briefly confronted the argentine president cristina fernandez de kirchner when they met at the g20 meeting in mexico today.. the prime minister told ms fernandez she should "respect the views" of islanders who are taking part in a referendum on the issue of control.
- read more at bbc.... i never thought i would offer praise of a tory leader but hey credit where its due..
-
-
Las Malvinas son Argentinas
sbf -
I have said before that I have no desire to disrupt the islanders' lifestyle and unique culture. My modus operandi has been to explain the facts and history related to the dispute, and thus apply the Argentine position. The Argentine station on Isla Soledad (later renamed to East Falkland) was sacked, its population forcibly deported, and all that remained was a prison colony and a few Argentine gauchos. It was an act of piracy at worst, and colonialism at its best. As Israel is finding out, military conquest does no establish legal title to the land. The Falklanders are there and well established, but they live on land which was invaded and thereafter settled. Britain's main argument for removing the Malvinas from the UN's official list of colonised territories is that the islands are semi-autonomous. While this is somewhat true, they still make up an overseas dependency of the UK. They do not have Dominion status like Australia or Canada - the mark of de facto if not de jure independence.
I look at the historical parallels everywhere and apply the situation when applicable to the Malvinas. Israel has settlements and should they ever take a vote, they would be unilaterally annexed to Israel. Does that mean that the illegal occupation should be legitimatised due to the settlers having a vote? How about a Tibetan plebiscite now that the Han Chinese make up the majority in Tibet? The concept of 'self-determination' has unfortunately been an abused one in the post-colonial age. Now did the British take a poll of the Argentine gauchos and the recently deported Malvineros who were just dusting themselves off in Buenos Aires? Would they have even cared what these people thought about what government they desired? They rounded up who they could and sent them packing to Montevideo, while letting the people useful to them (such as the remaining members of Argentine governor Luis Vernet's administration) stay should they accept British control. Fast-forward to 180 years later, and that seems to have cleansed the consciences of the reformed colonialists. Simon Jenkins of London's Guardian argues that the 'Falklands' are a colonial anachronism and supported leaseback. The islands would remain under British administration, while legal title to the islands would belong to Argentina. We don't seek a colony. They can have their own governor and legislative body. But you can't ignore history and selectively apply the 'self-determination' principle only when its beneficial to your cause. That the islands have and will continue to have a British character is not what we are concerned about. We seek a dialogue regarding our rights to the islands, as anyone who finds themselves on the ass-end of imperialism might attest to.
Qcmbr - At least James Peck had a Malvinas related story to it. We were speaking about the audacity of Argentine athletes making a Malvinas protest at the London Olympics. The Peck case demonstrates that there are strong and often abrasive attitudes on both sides of the dispute. Wales had nothing to do with this conversation and you unilaterally brought it into it in an apparent attempt to make an absurd point.