Argentine Politics Thread

America for Americans.

@USAF And Spain likes to be friends with Latin America especially since Spain has territory it wants back from Great Britain as well.

@Bat Isn't there an international law that says you can't drill for oil in disputed waters ?

edited 21st Dec '11 5:40:57 PM by TheWesterner

I was wondering why frisbees got bigger as they got closer then it hit me.

As for that unilateral crap with the UN, that's ridiculous. "We quit the treaty, so now they're violating international law!" No, you are, you bastards, stop manipulating the system.

"America for Americans" my ass.

I am now known as Flyboy.

@Bat

Why are UK territorial decisions more relevant than Argentine ones, even for an affair right in Argentina's backyard?

@USAF

Wouldn't we give it to the French, then? They were there before Britain. Actually, there's probably a native group that lived there before being wiped out. By your logic, shouldn't we find their descendants, and give the island to them?

@Westerner That is a good point.

edited 21st Dec '11 5:44:20 PM by stripesthezebra

The French apparently don't want it, since we don't hear them bitching about the Falklands all damn day.

Point is, "it's ours" is a ridiculous claim, as it was never legitimately Argentina's. Though as far as I can tell, there was no native population on the Falklands.

And again, proximity is meaningless.

I am now known as Flyboy.

Well, if we gave it to the native group then we'd probably have to give it back to the Argentinians since their gene pool would have been absorbed by them. Well, that's if there was a native population.

edited 21st Dec '11 5:46:39 PM by TheWesterner

I was wondering why frisbees got bigger as they got closer then it hit me.

France doesn't want it? And the bally Falklanders don't want to be under anyone else's control?

The Falklanders are pretty much British, thousands and thousands of miles away from Britain, who have lived there for more than a century. The islands are their home.

If they are searching for oil in territories that belong to the Falklands, proximity to Argentina doesn't matter, does it?

@USAF So? Just because France has better things to do doesn't mean they wouldn't want them. If it's just an inheritance issue, as you claim it is (it isn't), offer the islands to France, along with the oil in dispute, France maintains plenty of colonial properties, they probably won't turn their nose up at one more.

—flatly—

Have you a document saying plainly that France has designs on those islands anymore?

France relinquished its claims in 1766. Sold its only settlement on the place to the Spanish.

And let us pray that come it may (As come it will for a' that)

I'm not saying it's an inheritance issue. I'm saying that Argentina has no legitimate claim on the islands or the immediate area around them, absolutely regardless of what's in that area.

Argentina is a big-ass country. They have plenty of things already, and they don't need to bully others to get more. If they insist, they should be crushed.

I am now known as Flyboy.

@Colonial "The Falklanders are pretty much British, thousands and thousands of miles away from Britain, who have lived there for more than a century. The islands are their home."

Then it's a good thing I'm not saying the islands belong to Argentina, isn't it?

@Allan

The Falklands are owned by the UK. Once again, why are the territorial decision of the UK more relevant than the decisions of Argentina?

@USAF "I'm not saying it's an inheritance issue" Good, it's not. The UK government is claiming that sea water, which, as is normal for sea water, is unpopulated, belongs to it, basing it's claims on the fact that it owns an island nearby, making it a proximity issue, and I'm sorry, but Argentina is also nearby, and the will of a few islanders plus a government in another hemisphere does not supercede the will of Argentines.

edited 21st Dec '11 6:00:41 PM by stripesthezebra

Well, technically Argentina has owned the Falklands as the United Provinces of South America and as the Argentine Confederation.

edited 21st Dec '11 5:53:23 PM by TheWesterner

I was wondering why frisbees got bigger as they got closer then it hit me.

@stripes,

They're not "more relevant," the two nations had a treaty. That Argentina changed its mind more than a decade later is their own problem.

@Westerner,

The Spanish stole it from the British and the Argentinians and the rest of South America stole it from there. "Legitimate" isn't the first word that comes to mind to describe that.

edited 21st Dec '11 5:55:41 PM by USAF713

I am now known as Flyboy.

^^... Since when?

edited 21st Dec '11 5:55:33 PM by Colonial1.1

Not really. We the Americans invoked the NATO charter after 9/11. The Alliance was obligated to help. At best we got a half assed effort from the Germans and a total non-committal from the French and the rest.

We only got the Canadians and Brits as combatant allies.

Britain will get less support than that for Falklands 2.0.

They claimed them as part of the old Spanish Viceroy. Britain never recognised Spanish claims to the islands and therefore they didn't recognise Argentinian claims. The Argentinians never established any formal governance on the islands before 1833. The first settlement since Argentine independence was set up as a private venture backed by both the British and Argentine governments which later fell under the control of the British.

edited 21st Dec '11 5:58:09 PM by TheBatPencil

And let us pray that come it may (As come it will for a' that)

@Colonial 1832-1833 as the Argentine Confederation

I was wondering why frisbees got bigger as they got closer then it hit me.

@Tom,

Even just the ANZAC nations and Canada would be useful, and the US will probably help at least as much as we did in '82...

I am now known as Flyboy.

Well, here's both parties' sides.

The Argentine government has maintained a claim over the Falkland Islands since 1833, and renewed it as recently as June 2009. It considers the archipelago part of the Tierra del Fuego Province, along with South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands.

Supporters of the Argentine position make the following claims:

Sovereignty of the islands was transferred to Argentina from Spain upon independence, a principle known as uti possidetis juris.

Spain never renounced sovereignty over the islands, even when a British settlement existed.

Great Britain abandoned its settlement in 1776, and formally renounced sovereignty in the Nootka Sound Convention. Argentina has always claimed the Falklands, and never renounced its claim.

The British return in 1833 (classified as an invasion by Argentina) was illegal under international law, and this has been noted and protested by Argentina since June 17, 1833.

Self-determination principles are not applicable since the current inhabitants are not aboriginal and were brought to replace the Argentine population .

The Argentine population was expelled by the British invasion of 1833.

The islands are located on the continental shelf facing Argentina, which would give them a claim, as stated in the 1958 UN Convention on the Continental Shelf.§

Great Britain was looking to extend its territories in Americas as shown with the British invasions of the Río de la Plata years earlier.

§ Although a signatory to the 1958 convention, Argentina never ratified the convention. The 1958 Convention was superseded by 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, ratified by Argentina in 1995.

And this this is the Pro-British supporters' argument:

The British were the first to claim the islands in 1690 and have never renounced that claim.

The islands have been continuously and peacefully occupied by the UK since 1833, with the exception of 2 months occupation by Argentina.

Argentina's attempts to colonise the islands in 1820–33 were "sporadic and ineffectual".

The islands had no indigenous or settled population before British settlement.

In an Argentine-inspired poll in 1994, 87% of the island's population rejected any form of discussion of sovereignty under any circumstances

UN General Assembly resolutions calling for negotiations "are flawed because they make no reference to the Islanders' right to choose their own future."

The European Union Treaty of Lisbon ratifies that the Falkland Islands belong to Britain.

edited 21st Dec '11 6:08:52 PM by TheWesterner

I was wondering why frisbees got bigger as they got closer then it hit me.

Bullshit.

I am now known as Flyboy.

Considering the Argentines themselves are mostly of Spanish/Italian blood...

edited 21st Dec '11 6:16:34 PM by Erock

If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.

@USAF

"That Argentina changed its mind more than a decade later is their own problem."

Blowing of legitimate land claims is unbecoming of the UK.

Where is the legitimacy? All you have is proximity, which is meaningless. Argentina was perfectly willing to negotiate reasonably in '95, and in '07 they changed their mind. Britain is under no obligation to deal with such stupidity when a perfectly good treaty was already written up and signed.

I am now known as Flyboy.

Another thing - Harper would definitely come to the UK's aid.

If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.