Argentine Politics Thread

No because that "kicking the Falklanders" part is quite relevant and the time spent before reacting to it is also quite relevant.

Well if the Argentinean settlers lived in the islands for generations and wanted to be part of Argentina, Britain wouldn't really have much of a reason to expect the people of the islands or of Argentina to pay reparations centuries later. It's not the fault of the current generation what their ancestors did.

Of course, replacing the people in the islands with Argentinean settlers would be a crime that today could not go unpunished, even if centuries ago that kind of stuff happened a lot.

If the people responsible for the crime would happen to get away with it, punishing later generations would be wrong.

Every effort should be made to pursue the criminals, though.

edited 14th Apr '12 6:25:18 PM by BestOf

What said.

Britain responded to a call for help by the inhabitants of the island to rescue them from the Argentinians, who then chose to remain, even when offered the chance to move elsewhere. They have always had the right to be there, an they have always given Britain the right to govern them.

Except you're forgetting (more likely ignoring) that when the Brits landed, they found an abandoned island. So, naturally, they settled it.

Sure, which goes to show that if you have the use of force on your side, and history, you can get away with anything.

ummm.... not, the kicked out the argentinians. "In November 1832 Argentina sent Commander Mestivier as an interim commander to found a penal settlement, but he was killed in a mutiny after four days.[29] The following January, British forces returned (after having left in 1774) and requested the Argentine garrison leave. Don Pinedo, captain of the ARA Sarandi and senior officer present, protested but ultimately complied. "

edited 14th Apr '12 6:26:57 PM by Baff

Please explain to me how a plaque being there means it didn't belong to the British. What do you have against plaques? They're just ways of representing the legal situation. The British held the island. It did not belong to Argentina.

Your metaphor is not so great. You fail to mention in the metaphor that Mr. A. owns the land. Making your poor, sympathetic character a squatter.

Just because there's a plaque there doesn't mean the U.S. claimed the moon. What is it with you and plaques? They're just pieces of metal. What's important is what's written down, on the metal and in the books. By the way, that was a poorly chosen comparison. When Armstrong landed on the moon, one of the reasons his quote became so famous was because it wasn't about the U.S. People were expecting that, and he went with mankind instead.

But all of this is absolutely, totally unimportant. Because the children's children of the people involved in the original Argentinian settlement are all dead. The people who matter are the Falklanders.

As long as the Falklanders oppose Argentinian rule near-unanimously, Argentina doesn't get to rule them.

Can you think of any possible reason why the above statement is wrong?

edited 14th Apr '12 6:27:04 PM by Ultrayellow

If some wrong committed centuries ago went unpunished, that's just too bad. It would not be just to demand, for instance, that Spain pay for the near destruction of the native peoples they invaded in South America.

Baff, you're completely ignoring the fact that the British asked the garrison to leave because the mutineers asked for help in escaping the prison camp! They were in the area, asked for assistance, Britain gave it to them, and out of gratitude they put themselvs in British service. Completely voluntary, and that hasn't changed two centuries later.

Stop trying to act like the Argentines were in the right here.

If you leave a plot of land vacant for 70 years and someone seattles in it, you loose it and the aquire it.

Which would hold true for the Falklands, if they had not been stolen.

Well, the thing is Best Of that it does matter.

In fact, do to that logic, is why when massive amounts of Gold and Silver are found in sunk galeons, the US goverments takes by force the money from the people who found it, and give it to Spain instead of the very Indiand you are talking about.

edited 14th Apr '12 6:32:50 PM by Baff

Actually, if the person who left it vacant still owns the title (or, more likely, a legal copy of it) they still own it.

Well in most of ther world (civil law countries) a figure called Prescription operates. But yea, my metaphor, as all metaphors, was just ilustrative so, of course, is quite vague.

I will reply to your post after some reading, give me a sec.

edited 14th Apr '12 6:38:02 PM by Baff

Are you sure that that's how it goes? I thought that sunken treasures end up in museums and the finders get a reward... Anyway, that's how it should be.

But if you're gonna go by that analogy, and your point is that in international law things belong to the one who has the paperwork to prove it's theirs (as Spain would in these cases,) then doesn't that inevitably lead to the conclusion that the land belonged to Britain, since they had the longest standing claim to it, and that they had the right to evict the Argentine squatters?

Ninja'd.

edited 14th Apr '12 6:38:49 PM by BestOf

Well, my point is that Spain shouldnt have gotten the gold, since the stole it from the Indians. But that is another can of worms which is slightly more complex than the issue at hand.

@Caissas:

From Wikipedia.

"On 3 January 1833, Captain James Onslow, of the brig-sloop HMS Clio, arrived at Vernet's settlement at Port Louis to request that the flag of the United Provinces of the River Plate be replaced with the British one, and for the administration to leave the islands. While Lt. Col. José María Pinedo, commander of the schooner Sarandí, wanted to resist, his numerical disadvantage was obvious, particularly as a large number of his crew were British mercenaries who were unwilling to fight their own countrymen. Such a situation was not unusual in the newly independent states in Latin America, where land forces were strong, but navies were frequently quite undermanned. As such he protested verbally, but departed without a fight on 5 January. Argentina claims that Vernet's colony was also expelled at this time, though sources from time appear to dispute this, suggesting that the colonists were encouraged to remain initially under the authority of Vernet's storekeeper, William Dickson and later his deputy, Matthew Brisbane.[13]

No, it's actually simple with regards to the subject at hand.

The Spanish got said gold from land stolen from naitive Americans. Land now populated by the descendents of the Spanish. It stands to reason that, if the people of the Falkland Islands do not have the right to choose their own governance due to being the descendends of colonial settlers, the only people in all of the Americas who have any right to any land are naitive Americans.

Indeed, Argentina itself is merely a leftover of the crimes committed by the Spanish Empire and as such has no right to exist.

Actually, no - holding people responsible for crimes committed by other people is evidently ridiculous and veers into collective punishment territory. And at that point, the very idea of natural and legal universal human rights makes the very idea of such a thing offensive and abhorrant.

The British plaque you find so meaningless basically was their way to say "We were here, but we're not here at the moment. If you have a problem with that, too bad, we were here first you Bugger."

Well, the gold was not stolen from the "land" since is not as if they stole the indians land and sold if for gold, they rather took the gold by other means (like kidnapping and holding for randsom Montezuma, or Tupac Ameruca) and then they tried to take it to spain.

SO that gold should indeed be given back to the Indians, as for the lands, the same would apply, but the indians did not have the same concept of property as we have, and since our form of law is incompatible with theirs and do to the fact that we cant kick people out of their land, reparation should be given in money.

edited 14th Apr '12 6:55:39 PM by Baff

I invite you to go to Antartida, put a plaque on the ground saying that said spot is of your property, then leave and comeback 70 years later to see if anyone recognizes the validity of your title.

Also: Sorry for double posting. Last one.

edited 14th Apr '12 6:54:43 PM by Baff

If you had the right to claim the land in the first place, yes, you could do that. And if someone took the land anyways and removed the plaque, they would be stealing your land.

edited 14th Apr '12 6:56:12 PM by Vehudur

Planting a flag (or for that matter a plaque) is by no means a valid claim to sovereignity.

You know in how many places the Spaniards planted flags??? Yet they were later colonized by other people and no one gave it too much tought.

You mean Antarctica?

well, theirs a few things wrong with that.

A. I'm not a country, so I can't.

B. Antarctica is neutral and un-claimable according to international Law.

C. They also had a base there for a number of years.

Now, a better comparison would be if the Italian navy found a small, uninhabited Island in the middle of the Pacific ocean in the 1800s, a thousand miles from any shore, and set up a base for a number of years, and then left, then soome japanese fishermen lived off it for a number of years, then starved and left. Then in the 1930s the Italians come back, and build a small town. Should the Japanese be allowed in invade the island because a few guy lived on it?

Thats because they showed up, planted the flag, and left. The brits were there for years.

Plus, the Spanish didn't care, they didn't fight it, and most of it they even sold or gave away.

edited 14th Apr '12 7:02:26 PM by Joesolo

The Spanish claim (which itself is based around nothing more than planting a flag) being what the Argentine one is supposed to be based on, of course...

edited 14th Apr '12 7:02:22 PM by TheBatPencil

Well technically the first ones were the French, and Spain bought the colony from them....

So yea.

Nevertheless Argentina sending military forces to the island during years after finding it vacant should suffice as a claim to sovereignity, but if you like the other one better then thats fine.

edited 14th Apr '12 7:07:13 PM by Baff

But then the spanish Left and the british came back.

And if that Argentina military mission secured their claim, what about the British missionS?

So the Argentine claim, constructed upon an abandonded Spanish claim, was ultimatley baseless even before 1833.

Indeed, no Argentine state extended that far south until roughly around the 1880s◊, when the Falkland Islands had already been peacefully settled for generations.