Argentina eventually going to 'win back' the Falklands?
Last week Argentina handed in a large pile of documents with "the fruits of" 11 years of research claiming a vast amount of ocean east of Argentina, which includes the Falkland Islands and South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands.
The claim adds to the 4,800,000 sq km of continental shelf spreading out 320 km (200 miles) from Argentina's coast.
So they're pretty much saying the Falkland Islands are part of Argentina and that Britain has really been camped up on their door step since 1833, but they have also backed this up with 11 years of detailed evidence and handed it into the UN, so will they simply ignore it or will Britain have to play fair and hand back the Falklands to its, well lets say rightful owner.
For instance when Argentina invaded in 1982 Britain responded by long range air raids (Black Buck raids) backed by a large naval convoy including three ASW carriers and some converted container ships and cruise liners to carry soldiers (mostly conscripts).
Now that's a little overdoing it if you ask me, and a little petty, why didn't Britain simply prove the point that it was the valid owner of the islands by putting so much logic onto the table that Argentina would spontaneously decide to give them back the islands.
Is it maybe because the Falklands are actually part of Argentina, (they're continental shelf anyway which is well established) and Britain had been wrong in seizing them and stealing them from Argentina in 1833, this isn't the first time Argentina contacted the UN to bring this up for debate but on numerous occasions the UK has refused to bring the fact up, not saying that makes them look any less guilty by the way!
At least if another war breaks out Argentina will probably lose since it doesn't have what matters, and that's force!
The claim adds to the 4,800,000 sq km of continental shelf spreading out 320 km (200 miles) from Argentina's coast.
So they're pretty much saying the Falkland Islands are part of Argentina and that Britain has really been camped up on their door step since 1833, but they have also backed this up with 11 years of detailed evidence and handed it into the UN, so will they simply ignore it or will Britain have to play fair and hand back the Falklands to its, well lets say rightful owner.
For instance when Argentina invaded in 1982 Britain responded by long range air raids (Black Buck raids) backed by a large naval convoy including three ASW carriers and some converted container ships and cruise liners to carry soldiers (mostly conscripts).
Now that's a little overdoing it if you ask me, and a little petty, why didn't Britain simply prove the point that it was the valid owner of the islands by putting so much logic onto the table that Argentina would spontaneously decide to give them back the islands.
Is it maybe because the Falklands are actually part of Argentina, (they're continental shelf anyway which is well established) and Britain had been wrong in seizing them and stealing them from Argentina in 1833, this isn't the first time Argentina contacted the UN to bring this up for debate but on numerous occasions the UK has refused to bring the fact up, not saying that makes them look any less guilty by the way!
At least if another war breaks out Argentina will probably lose since it doesn't have what matters, and that's force!
Labels: falklands war
posted by Paul Iddon @ 7:54 PM
2 Comments:
At June 21, 2009 9:08 PM ,
Anonymous said...
I am amazed at how ill informed to seem to be about the whole issue. Argentina didn't invade the Faulklands islands because they thought they had a valid claim to them, and wouldn't have given them back if it had been shown that this claim was not valid. The key reason for the invasion was to have a quick properganda victory for the failing Argentinain regiem. diplomacy simply would not have resulted in the island being returned, as the goverment in Argentina was far from concerned about such niceties. This also seems completely insane as you expect the British to keep to just diplomacy, when the Argentians haven't, and have captured thousands of British citizens.
Mostly conscripts? what the hell are you talking about? Britain hasn't had conscription since 1960! 20 years before the faulkland war. The last conscript left the army in 1963! You are just plain wrong there.
You make it out that it is clear cut that Britain should clear give the Faulkland Islands back to the Argentinians, and there are no arguments against this, but you seem to ignore that the population of the Faulkland Islands are overwhelmingly in support of remaining part of the UK. Should the extent of the Argentinian continental shelf some how overule the people who live on the islands? I imagine if Britain tried to apply the same logic to the Republic of Irland the world would be up in arms, and rightly so.
Even if you can really consider the Islands stolen from Argentina is not clear cut. Brtain founded a setlment on the Islands before the country of Argentina existed, and infact the first inhabitants of Islands were french. The british and french both set up settlements and then later the british withdrew from the Islands, while maintaining a claim, and the french handed their settlement over to the spanish who later also withdrew, while maintaining a claim. Substancially later the Argentinians arrived on the islands, interperated the spanish claim as being by extension their claim and tried to take control of the islands. So really opposite ends of the uninhabited Islands were claimed by two colonial powers, and it is simply the case that Britain ended up taking the Islands as a whoe. It wasn't some well established Argentinian colony that had been theirs for as long as any one could remember that the british suddenly invaded.
At February 20, 2010 5:52 PM ,
Anonymous said...
you are a stupid cunt.
Falklands have been British for over 177 years.
Post a Comment
<< Home