1982 Falklands (Malvinas) War: a view from across the pond

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by fruitbat

Stern that page you linked was from an Argentine Government webpage.

No doubt that there's no slant on that lol.

Still waiting for an answer to my question.

..well what's wrong with that? Or is it only the British take a valid one?

[Sternjaeger II]

uh and Osprey, you're doing the much dreaded parallel football-history which I believe is one of the telltales of out of place banter.. does it really have to go down to that now? Can the conversation be civilised?

[Jaws2002]

If you look at the changes the global map had in the last 200 years, I kind of have a hard time understanding Argentinian demands.
Things change. countries and empires come and go. Borders are constantly changing.
The place I grew up in, back in Romania, belonged to Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, Austro-Hungarian empire, and now is part of Romania. The map of the world changed hundreds of times in this 200 years.

200 years is a long time. There are generations of Brits that lives all their lives on that island. It's their land now. Better get used to it.

[Gribbers]

Originally Posted by Jaws2002

If you look at the changes the global map had in the last 200 years, I kind of have a hard time understanding Argentinian demands.
Things change. countries and empires come and go. Borders are constantly changing.
The place I grew up in, back in Romania, belonged to Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, Austro-Hungarian empire, and now is part of Romania. The map of the world changed hundreds of times in this 200 years.

200 years is a long time. There are generations of Brits that lives all their lives on that island. It's their land now. Better get used to it.

Agreed. I am British (not of Celtic origin), I'm pretty sure I/we don't claim ownership of everything the Roman's conquered hundreds of years ago.

Hmmmmm, our ancestors hail from Spain, we're Argentinian, therefore the Falklands are ours, despite the fact we all took turns to ravage the the poor 'rocks' with plague, run away for a while and come back (applies to Brits and Argies here)

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

..well what's wrong with that? Or is it only the British take a valid one?

Again Stern, I ask the question for the third time. how many years is OK.

200 years in your book isn't OK, but 500 hundred is OK.

Where the line, 201, 301, 401, i'm curious of your rational.

Of course i expect you to duck for a third time.

Can't answer, I'm not surprised.

Oh, and there's nothing wrong with posting what you did, but if you expect all and sundry to believe intrinsically what you posted without examination then you are a fool, Just as if I'd of posted a doctored 'British' history, then i would be a fool.

As to the question in hand, its nothing to do with me or any of you unless you live there. Only the people who live there, opinions count. I couldn't give a rats ass if they wanted to go solo, but that's my opinion.

Of course if its not up to them, as a few in this thread have delightfully had a bash, i ask them,

Do we advocate ethnic cleansing these days.......



and to add,

I have friends from the first time around, i don't want anymore to have to go through that.

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by fruitbat

Again Stern, I ask the question for the third time. how many years is OK.

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.

200 years in your book isn't OK, but 500 hundred is OK.

Where the line, 201, 301, 401, i'm curious of your rational.

Of course i expect you to duck for a third time.

Can't answer, I'm not surprised.

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..

Oh, and there's nothing wrong with posting what you did, but if you expect all and sundry to believe intrinsically what you posted without examination then you are a fool, Just as if I'd of posted a doctored 'British' history, then i would be a fool.

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.

As to the question in hand, its nothing to do with me or any of you unless you live there. Only the people who live there, opinions count. I couldn't give a rats ass if they wanted to go solo, but that's my opinion.

Of course if its not up to them, as a few in this thread have delightfully had a bash, i ask them,

Do we advocate ethnic cleansing these days.......

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.

and to add,

I have friends from the first time around, i don't want anymore to have to go through that.

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.

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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.

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...

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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.

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?

[Sternjaeger II]

Originally Posted by kendo65

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 (in a few countries eg Bolivia had no power or control at all) - So the descendants of colonisers of Argentina have a dispute withthe descendents of the colonisers of the Falklands...1

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.

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?

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.

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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.)

[trashcanman]

Originally Posted by Sternjaeger II

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........

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!