The Falklands or las Malvinas? - Page 15

---

On June 21 2011 19:22 Aristodemus wrote:

No we didnt ever fight a war with Brazil. If we had though, they wouldnt have "kicked our asses" either. I know we did alot of wrongs back in the day (mainly 19th century) but not in South America. I dont know where this hostility comes from. India, China and South Africa have plenty of reason to complain, Argentina and Brazil have none. As for goflips comments above, that entire post is drivel.

---

---

On June 21 2011 22:46 Acrofales wrote:


I'm not Argentinean and consider myself fairly impartial in the matter. I don't know enough about the war to give you facts about whether or not the UK reacted proportionally.

However, I do know that the feelings in Argentina about the Falklands (and the English) there are pretty strong and yes, the English do get blamed for warcrimes (real or imagined). No, the Falklands really mean absolutely nothing to anybody. They are a group of barren rocks in the middle of the Atlantic and probably can't even support enough sheep to hold their (meagre) population. However, Argentineans are a very proud people and they feel the Falklands belong to them: that is why the invasion in 1982 was popular and an excellent way of distracting the populations from the horrible atrocities committed in internal politics. It was unfortunate for them that the British government also needed a distraction from their failed internal economical politics and war was the result. A lot of Argentineans view the war as injust and neo-colonialism as they feel the invasion was justified. As such they feel that the sinking of the Belgrano battleship was an unprovoked act of violence. I need to reiterate that I do not agree and am reporting on what I was told during my time in Argentina. Personally I think that invading the Falklands was an act of war and the sinking of a warship was a part of that war. Regardless, however, it is quite obvious that the Falkland war didn't help resolve the conflict over the islands one bit: both countries have since been more convinced than ever that that useless pile of rocks in the middle of the Atlantic belongs to them.

---

---

On June 21 2011 22:39 jello_biafra wrote:

Haha, I don't love the queen no but I don't particularly object to her. I respect my country and the rights of its citizens though.

---

---

On June 21 2011 22:23 jello_biafra wrote:

It's not like Britain (not England!) signed one big treaty saying "we will get rid of all our colonies", they were dealt with on a case by case basis, the majority became independent countries but a lot wanted to stay on as British territories.

Here's a list of our "colonies"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Overseas_Territories

---

---

On June 21 2011 22:49 ElPeque.fogata wrote:


Actually, you tried at least three times, and you had your asses handed over

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_invasions_of_the_R%C3%ADo_de_la_Plata

And while doing so without getting any help from spain, which had enough problems with napoleon, the independence gears were put into motion.

---

---

On June 21 2011 22:29 chgh wrote:


Pal: War crime is a war crime. No matter if the Nazis were worse than your. In the case of Belgrano, you imposed the Total Exclusion Zone around the Falklands.
You Britons try to justify all. You always have an answer.

---

---

On June 21 2011 22:52 Acrofales wrote:


Oh no? How about... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_on_the_Granting_of_Independence_to_Colonial_Countries_and_Peoples

---

---

On June 21 2011 22:52 Acrofales wrote:


Oh no? How about... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_on_the_Granting_of_Independence_to_Colonial_Countries_and_Peoples

---

---

On June 21 2011 22:49 ElPeque.fogata wrote:


Actually, you tried at least three times, and you had your asses handed over

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_invasions_of_the_R%C3%ADo_de_la_Plata

And while doing so without getting any help from spain, which had enough problems with napoleon, the independence gears were put into motion.

---

---

On June 21 2011 22:52 Acrofales wrote:


Oh no? How about... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_on_the_Granting_of_Independence_to_Colonial_Countries_and_Peoples

---

---

On June 21 2011 22:54 Sanctimonius wrote:


But...we didn't sign that. It's a non-binding UN resolution (so not ours) which we abstained from. Spain too, I note

Does the Falklands really count as a colony anyways? Would Jersey, or Guernsey, or the Isle of Man count as colonies, then?

---

---

On June 21 2011 22:48 Sanctimonius wrote:
@chgh
You know, I'm reading up on the Belgrano. Now, I know Wikipedia isn't the be all and end all, but it seems like, and correct me if I'm wrong here, that Britain and Argentina were at war after Argentina, for whatever reason, attacked British territory. The exclusion zone was imposed for neutral ships and both sides knew that being anywhere near the Falklands was a justification for being attacked, especially if it is judged as being a threat. The British Navy judged it a threat and reacted accordingly. Lives were lost, always a sad thing, but expected in times of war?

I'm seeing your arguments but you are denying the rights of the Falklanders. The Falklands belong to them, if anybody, and they are British by choice. They have always been, since they were there. I cannot claim to know what happened two hundred years ago, but as I said before, it simply doesn't matter. What matters is now, and the heritage these people have. Also, again you dismiss their wishes with this notion of aboriginal - by that argument, as others have said, should those descended from Europeans across Argentina leave and give the country 'back' to the aboriginal Amerindians? This notion of aboriginal is simply not a useful argument. The British settled the islands with a permanent settlement. Argentina, as far as I know, did not. The Falklands have been British for two hundred years, but Argentina would completely ignore the previous two centuries and make it Argentinian, based on 'legal' claims from dubious sources centuries ago, and through geographical claims which aren't recognised by any international definitions. The Falklands lie outside of Argentinian waters - by what right do they claim the islands? I'm also unsure of when the majority of the UN decided the Falklands were Argentinian - can you point me towards that particular decision? And again you mention that this is simply the Argentine claim. I'm sorry but just because Argentina ratifies this claim in a constitution does not make it fact.

---

---

On June 21 2011 22:47 chgh wrote:


Judges in England in the 90's, newspapers, British books about Mount Longdon ! Argentine Books.
What kind of evidences you need. Until I know I only can post links.

---

---

On June 21 2011 22:53 KwarK wrote:

I can't believe I'm even having this argument but okay. Argentina invaded British soil in an unprovoked act of aggression, purely for the purpose of taking land from the indigenous British inhabitants. The ship was a part of attack. If sinking the ship is criminal then how illegal was the invasion itself?
This is like a petty street thug coming into the house of a championship boxer to murder them in their sleep, getting their ass handed to them and then claiming assault.

---

---

On June 21 2011 23:07 jello_biafra wrote:

You mean these countries WERE Spain at the time and the British were also dealing with Napoleon?

And also, from the very article you posted..."The invasions took place between 1806 and 1807, as part of the Napoleonic Wars, when Spain was an ally of France."

---

---

"Eighty-nine countries voted in favour, none voted against, and nine abstained: Australia, Belgium, Dominican Republic, France, Portugal, Spain, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, and United States"
No.

---

---

On June 21 2011 23:18 Rabiator wrote:

Any of them .... all I could google up was allegations and newspaper articles which point out war crimes on both sides.

Dont bother with any articles which write about alleged stuff though.

---

---

On June 21 2011 23:18 Rabiator wrote:
Any of them .... all I could google up was allegations and newspaper articles which point out war crimes on both sides.

Dont bother with any articles which write about alleged stuff though.

---

---

On June 21 2011 23:22 Acrofales wrote:


Seeing as I'm quoting anyway for the bottom part I figured I could easily respond to this: however you twist the words, the UK obviously went to war with the Spanish colonies in South America and got their ass kicked. You can say that it was Napoleon's fault all you like, but you cannot deny you went to war there, which was the original point.




Well, there's also Chapter 11 of the foundational charter of the UN which aims at the resolution of conflicts regarding non-self-governing territories as well. The Falklands are explicitly listed as a disputed territory in the current list of non-self-governing territories. Of course, the resolution of this dispute is what this whole thread is about. Saying the UK never agreed to resolve such conflicts (possibly through decolonization) is rather silly, though.

---