I'm sorry, but in my opinion it's a question that bears no meaning. two thirds of the islanders are British or of British descent, and these people are there because of the illegal actions taken by their ancestors 200 years before, right? Well it's unfortunate, but in my view that doesn't make them natives, and I think there's a bit of confusion about this point.
I haven't said that, you are saying it. It's a big of a generalisation me thinks. What point are you exactly trying to make?
I think we're confusing the concept of "native" with "indigenous". British "Falklanders" are not indigenous, hence the "right of self determination" doesn't apply, technically they're still squatting on a contested piece of land.

..uh and what's with the troll tone? Calm down fella.. :?

sorry, I should have explained why I posted that (although I believe I did it afterwards): it's to show that as much as some of us here are convinced that there's no question about British sovereignty (but haven't produced much support or evidence to that), there is another side of the story, which of course is the Argentinian one, who claims otherwise.
The whole point is that I don't think people who live there are in the position of taking an unbiased decision because of their interests. This is a matter above generational opinions, it's something that needs to be determined by the two contending countries and possibly the UN, the voice of the people living there should bear little or no weight to the decision, because it can be perceived as biased and be linked to personal interests.

As for the ethnic cleansing, I have no idea what you are trying to say, but it sounds a bit OTT.

It's unfortunate, and I agree, people shouldn't die for such things. Still, I'm not happy to hear that the UK uses £61+ million a year to keep its military presence in the Falklands, it's ludicrous to say the least in such dire times.

As others have said, where does one draw the line? No country in North or South America could be said to still possess an 'uncontaminated' indigenous population. Most were completely dispossessed and until recently (for a few countries eg Bolivia) had no power or control at all - So the descendants of colonisers of Argentina have a dispute with the descendents of the colonisers of the Falklands...



Somewhat similar situation in Northern Ireland, roughly 2/3 see themselves as British, 1/3 Irish. Not sure how you get an 'unbiased' opinion from anyone living in this part of the world. In fact isn't just about any national allegiance a matter of 'bias' being fed into children by family and society as they grow up?

well I suppose it's down to how legit the claims of each side are. It is historically proved that the British settlers forcibly instated themselves on the Falkland islands, expelling the Argentinian settlers instead of living on the island together.

That's the whole argument around secular state.
On one side what the British settlers did is not fair, on the other, they've been there for quite some time more or less undisturbed and they feel entitled to it because of the time spent there.. that's why I don't think it would be fair to give the Falklands/Malvinas either to Argentina or the UK, but turning them into an independent state.
What I would like to say to my "native" British friends here and in real life is that we don't have any personal beef with you about this issue, it's that to the non-British public opinion, especially the one of countries with no big colonial heritage, the British claims on the Falkland islands are far-fetched and anachronistic, and if anything they just seem to be a cover for other economic interests, I hope you can understand that.

For sure. It's impossible not to be struck by the sheer ridiculousness of the situation where a country has claim on (or finds itself stuck with?) some islands on the other side of the world because some of its citizens set up home there a few hundred years back.

(not convinced by the economic reasoning - I suspect that if Argentina hadn't launched the invasion 30 years ago the islands would probably have been quietly disposed of by Britain by now - populations have been sold out easily in the past when it proved more convenient and cheap.)

giving freedom to afghanistan ?!??! LOOL stop watchin tv!! thats bs propaganda .
sorry for the ot.. i thougth that it was clear to the "western public opinion" that the invasions of the last 10 years are as illegal as they can be..

Dont open that can of worms.

Iraq yes, but Afghanistan no. They deliberately allowed terrorists to train and strike from their country, an act of war if you ask me.

My pay cheques used to be from the Foreign Office. Many of my working colleagues were paid by the MoD. I am proud of what actions I have taken on behalf of my country. As a rule, we left the highest calling to the RAF :)

There has never been any Argentinian settlers on the Falklands.
Argentina did not even exist as a separate sovereign nation at the time that the desentants of the current occupants of the islands settled there.

Penguins yes. Argentinians no!

Well then you and I are on the opposite sides of the same coin, as it were. My pay checks were from Dept of Navy and my operational chain of command was the Dept of State. If you had been in Paris in the mid '80s we may have even crossed paths. :cool:

The british kick out the sout american/spanish settlers of Malvinas. Many of this settlers, were from regions that actually belongs to Argentina

Big mistake here. The 5º Infantry Battalion was conformed by 70% conscrip soldiers. They wasn´t a elite unit (The diferences between others units, it´s that this was prepared for this type of combat)

The Scot Guard Battalion (300 man? Here the Battalion are of 500 man aprox) fight against a part of NACAR company of 5º I. Battalion.
They fight againts two sections of 5º Marines, and 1 section of the RI4 (Army, those tooke parte in goose green battle and retreat to tumbledown). The scotish fight against 100-150 mans.

I wouldn't call that battle including fierce Hand to Hand combat with fixed bayonets a "ran for their lives" also i believe you are underestimating the strenght of 2 Btl SG i'm pretty sure that there were more than 300 men involved in the attack.
IIRC there were two bayonet charges performed by the Scots Guards. When the perimeter was secured by 2 SG the Argies launched a first counter attack which was fought off by the Scots.
The Argies had to withdraw when outflanked by the SG and even then the Argie Marines planned another counter attack, the final withdrawal was ordered by Argies staff back in Stanley.
Btw when the Argie arty started up firing the Mountain top the positions were already taken by the SG so calling it firing at own positions isn't quite correct because at that point the Argie Marines were in retreat and have already left the Mountain top and also is to mention that during the whole battle there was very accurate Mortar fire on the advancing SG by a Argentine Mortar Platoon at Mount William.

Wikipedia quotes 900 Scots versus 500 Marines.