Falkland Islanders Vote To Remain British

[folium]

It's only a matter of time. Look at a map.

And if they invade again so will we kick their ass again its been British for 180+ years almost as long as America has been America

We might have a problem there, if the argies did invade again we wont have aircover, without aircover we would get hammered. Too many fighting men are involved in wars we cant win, that idiot in number 10 has practically neutered the military and i think we would seriously struggle to retake the islands now. Absolutely no offense to the military but their ability to do anything is now very limited.

Provided they can persuade the French not to supply them with arms then the highly trained Brits can and will thrash those poorly trained Argentine foot soldiers.

They may have been the enemy but they fought very well for a largely conscript army that was poorly led above battalion level and poorly supplied (see how the Argentine Marines on Tumbledown performed). Their pilots were similarly amazingly brave. I have no problem with the individual Argentine soldier or civilian but they have a shockingly venal and authoritarian government who will never respect the views of those that do not serve their purpose.

[folium]

The issue here is the islands, not Iran.

But it does show up how the delightful Ms Kirchner operates.

So why do you think the Argentines have a legitimate claim on the Falklands?

[evadgib]

Things change. There were those that thought the Panama canal would never go back to Panama. But it happened.

Yet Pineapple-head was evicted as soon as he showed signs of emanating Nasser!

[evadgib]

Sabre rattling by Argentina is and always has been a smokescreen to divert attention away from domestic problems or to prepare for an election. The editor of the Bunos Aries Herald said same when interviewed by BBC a few days ago.

[maidu]

The Falklands have only ever been disputed when the Argentinian Junta/Dictator/President of the day has needed smoke and mirrors to distract the Argentinian people away from internal troubles.

That simply isn't true. The Argentinians overwhelmingly feel those islands belong to Argentina. Wishing that weren't so doesn't make it not so.

So who in the Argentine first started these claims, the Spanish invaders or the indigenous population ?

There was NO Argentina when the Brits colonised the FALKLANDS

One of the first to spend any time there was a Brit who was abandoned at the islands. He managed to survive for several months before another sailing ship found him. He had a dog with him which aided him in capturing birds for food. I read it in a non-fiction adventure book. It sounds plausible (I can go back and check details, names, dates) ....or it may me British myth-making.

[StGeorge]

It always amazes me that when people like Jingthing talk strongly about a certain subject, that they fail to do adequate research into the subject. With the advent of the internet, there really are no excuses for being ill-informed before posting.

Some have tried to post a history of the Falklands here with some large blanks and errors, so here is my researched pennyworth from various websites, which give the definitive history which has also been agreed by Argentinian historians who are not interested in politics it seems. My apologies for its length:

The islands first appear on European maps in the early-sixteenth century. This suggests that Spanish explorers may have spotted them. John Strong, an Englishman, is the first European known to have actually landed, in 1690. The first European settlement of the islands was by France in 1764. A British settlement was established separately the next year. The islands appear to have been uninhabited at this time, but archaeology shows some previous human activity. Spain purchased France’s rights in the islands in 1767. On 22 January 1771 Britain and Spain signed an agreement where both nations rights were reserved. After this agreement Britain voluntarily abandoned its colony physically (not politically) in 1774, but left a plaque asserting its sovereignty. Spain ruled the islands from Buenos Aires (now the capital of Argentina) without opposition until 1811. Spain then withdrew, leaving the islands uninhabited, but still claimed (none of Spains territories were relinquished in terms of sovereignty until 1836). A significant reason for the dispute is that Britain and Spain simultaneously held claims to sovereignty over the islands from 1767 and as respected in the 1771 agreement. Argentina gained it's independence unilaterally from Spain in 1816 and today claims to have asserted its sovereignty over the Falklands from that very year, organising some settlement of the islands in the 1820s. The first ship sent by the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata was led by a Yankee Privateer (Pirate) named Jewett. The sealers basically ignored him as his crew were in a poor state and no threat. He arrived on October 1820 but due to illness was replaced by another Yankee Privateer (Pirate) named Mason who left in April 1821 and left nothing behind. Both these men had licence from the United Province to attack Spanish ships. This says to me that at that point, the claim of the United Province on the Falklands was illegal even by Spanish historical claims. The fact Mason then sailed to Europe and attacked Portugese ships resulted in his capture and imprisonment for 2yrs as a Pirate. Here’s a Portugese note on him:

Case of the Heroina: The Commander, it appeared in evidence, was a
North American of the name of William Robert Mason, and his commission was
dated in April, 1820, authorising him only to molest Spanish vessels,
enjoining, and imposing on him the obligation to avoid every abuse of his
trust, and all irregularities on the high seas which might implicate the Buenos
Ayres flag. In his cruize he was directed to overhaul every vessel, both armed
and traders navigating under the Spanish flag, and examine their commissions
and papers to see if they were legal, and the use made of them, and also to
punish all excesses committed against neutral and friendly vessels. The Heroina
was fitted out and commissioned as a vessel belonging to the Government of
Buenos Ayres. On examination, however, 45 men, composing the crew,
spontaneously confessed, that this corvette pursued a system of piracy, robbing
all the vessels they could.

In January 1829, Luis Vernet realises that Britain claim sovereignty, and so submits a land grant to the British Consul, requesting British approval.
Now why would he do that if the United Province had a legit claim? Maybe because he was a businessman before he was an Argentinian, and was after exploiting the fisheries off the Falklands rather than being another Columbus. After receiving assurances from the British minister chargé d'affaires, Sir Woodbine Parish, Vernet provided regular reports to the British on the progress of his enterprise. Things changed however, and Vernet then proceeded to seize any ships coming to the Falklands including the USA. In 1831, Luis Vernet seized three US vessels (Breakwater, Superior and Harriet) hunting seals in Falklands waters, confiscating their catch and arresting their crews. Vernet returned to the
mainland, bringing senior officers of the US vessels to stand trial for violating restrictions on seal hunting. The US consul protested violently against the seizure of US ships and the USS Lexington sailed to the Falklands. The log of the Lexington reports only the destruction of arms and a powder store, though in his families claim against the US government for compensation (rejected by the US government of President Cleveland in 1885) Vernet stated that the settlement was destroyed. The Islands were declared free from all government, the seven senior members of the settlement were arrested for piracy and taken to Montevideo.
This latter incident finally convinced the British Foreign Office to reassert its sovereignty claim over the islands. Throughout much of 1832, the United Provinces did not have a government representative in the islands. The Buenos Aires government commissioned Major Esteban Mestivier as the new governor of the islands, to set up a penal colony, but when he arrived at the settlement on 15 November 1832 his soldiers mutinied and killed him. The mutiny was put down by Lieutenant Colonel José María Pinedo, commander of the United Provinces schooner Sarandí, with aid from a French ship Jean-Jacques, which had arrived by chance, and by some loyal gauchos. Order was restored just before the British arrived. Under the command of Captain John James Onslow, the brig-sloop HMS Clio, previously stationed at Rio de Janeiro, reached Port Egmont on 20 December 1832. It was later joined by HMS Tyne. Their first actions were to repair the fort at Port Egmont and affix a notice of possession. Onslow arrived at Puerto Louis on 2 January 1833. Pinedo sent an officer to the British ship, where he was requested to replace the Argentine flag with the British one, and leave the location.

On January 5th, Pinedo evacuates the garrison together with two of Vernet’s settlers, Joaquin Acuña and Matthew González, and their wives. Onslow persuades some twenty-four of Vernet’s settlers to remain and appoints William Dickson, an Irishman and Vernet’s storeman, as the British Representative on the Islands.The Brits re-assert British Sovereignity plaques that were illegally removed. The islands have remained in British control ever since.

Conclusion: The Brits only reasserted control after River-Plate representatives used the islands to attack other nations shipping in an act of piracy.

I hope this helps to educate people as to the reasons behind the so called expulsion/annexation/invasion of the Brits in 1833 as portrayed by the Argentinians.

Jingthing claims that the UK should negotiate with the Argentinians so as to settle the issue. Here is evidence that such talks have been tried within the last 100yrs to no avail:

Argentina saw an opportunity to push its case for gaining sovereignty over the Falkland Islands and raised the issue in the United Nations, after joining the UN in 1945. Following the Argentine claim, the United Kingdom offered to take the dispute over the Falkland Island Dependencies to mediation at the International Court of Justice in the Hague (1947, 1948 and 1955). On each occasion Argentina declined.

In 1964, the United Nations passed a resolution calling on the UK and Argentina to proceed with negotiations on finding a peaceful solution to the sovereignty question which would be "bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands.

I think the recent referendum asserts the Falklanders rights as per the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly resolution
1514 (XV).

The Argentinian claim is based on an ancient Roman Law…. Uti possidetis juris which is a principle of international law that states that newly formed sovereign states should have the same borders that they had before their independence.

Well on behalf of the Falklanders, I reject that claim as it has subsequently been usurped by the British claim of the Roman Law…. Uti possidetis (Latin for "as you possess") which is a principle in international law that territory and other property remains with its possessor at the end of a conflict.

Yo Argentina…. on 14 June 1982 Argentine forces surrendered and control of the islands returned to the UK…. Uti possidetis…

Nuff said.

Edited March 13, 2013 by StGeorge

[macksview]

the falklands are british, the people want it and the government should protect their wishes.

oil oil and more oil, money talks but so do the people.

lots of brave men lost their lives there, RIP those who served and sacrificed.

what irks me was some of the lousy treatment the veterans of that war suffered, celebrated as heros, forgotten when the euphoria wore off.

nothing has changed for the british serviceman, "a land fit for heros", when will that statement be proven true.

[Jingthing]

...

lots of brave men lost their lives there, RIP those who served and sacrificed.

...

Lots of brave Argies lost their lives as well, sadly in the name of a dictator, but Maggie Thatcher was no prize either. Didn't Maggie use that conflict to boost her failing political brand?

Edited March 13, 2013 by Jingthing

[laislica]

It's only a matter of time. Look at a map.

And if they invade again so will we kick their ass again its been British for 180+ years almost as long as America has been America

We might have a problem there, if the argies did invade again we wont have aircover, without aircover we would get hammered. Too many fighting men are involved in wars we cant win, that idiot in number 10 has practically neutered the military and i think we would seriously struggle to retake the islands now. Absolutely no offense to the military but their ability to do anything is now very limited.

Quite right.

Have a read at Vulcan 603, a blow by blow of how "the" Vulcan got to Stanley and managed to bomb the airfield.

It was pure luck, nothing else and it could not be done again.

The book is a super read and when I read it I really couldn't put it down.

[7by7]

...

lots of brave men lost their lives there, RIP those who served and sacrificed.

...

Lots of brave Argies lost their lives as well, sadly in the name of a dictator, but Maggie Thatcher was no prize either. Didn't Maggie use that conflict to boost her failing political brand?

Love her or hate her, Thatcher was the leader of a democraticaly elected government. But you don't believe in democracy, apparantly.

If Galtieri and his junta had not decided to invade then there would have been no British response and brave men on both sides would still be alive today.

[RabC]

It's only a matter of time. Look at a map.

And if they invade again so will we kick their ass again its been British for 180+ years almost as long as America has been America

We might have a problem there, if the argies did invade again we wont have aircover, without aircover we would get hammered. Too many fighting men are involved in wars we cant win, that idiot in number 10 has practically neutered the military and i think we would seriously struggle to retake the islands now. Absolutely no offense to the military but their ability to do anything is now very limited.

Quite right.

Have a read at Vulcan 603, a blow by blow of how "the" Vulcan got to Stanley and managed to bomb the airfield.

It was pure luck, nothing else and it could not be done again.

The book is a super read and when I read it I really couldn't put it down.

I am sorry but you have to pick on the one part of the Conflict that was purely a publicity stunt. I am not normally pro RAF but their guys were onboard the carriers and everyone else knows what the other 2 services did, but that long range stunt was for political reasons only.

Edited March 13, 2013 by RabC

[Trembly]

It's only a matter of time. Look at a map.

And if they invade again so will we kick their ass again its been British for 180+ years almost as long as America has been America

We might have a problem there, if the argies did invade again we wont have aircover, without aircover we would get hammered. Too many fighting men are involved in wars we cant win, that idiot in number 10 has practically neutered the military and i think we would seriously struggle to retake the islands now. Absolutely no offense to the military but their ability to do anything is now very limited.

Quite right.

Have a read at Vulcan 603, a blow by blow of how "the" Vulcan got to Stanley and managed to bomb the airfield.

It was pure luck, nothing else and it could not be done again.

The book is a super read and when I read it I really couldn't put it down.

Haven't you lot ever heard of RAF Mount Pleasant?

[Jingthing]

...

Love her or hate her,

...

Hate her.

[transam]

...

Love her or hate her,

...

Hate her.

Why. ?

[Scott]

Off-topic and inflammatory posts have been removed. No one is under any obligation to answer anyone.

[7by7]

Point taken, Scott.

However, a certain member has repeatedly posted that the democratic wishes of the islanders should be ignored.

Personaly I feel that he should be willing to justify that view.

[Jingthing]

Argentina democratically elected Kirchner and Argentina's justification for not feeling the islander's preferences are relevant to the nationality of the islands was already posted by me. I have no "justification" of anything here except to say that there are two strong sides to this conflict, and just because you've been fed only the one side all your life doesn't mean there isn't also merit to the other side. Like Kirchner, I wouldn't want to see anyone else die over this, and it was tragic that so many on both sides have already died.

Which side has the stronger argument or more accurate take on the history? I really don't know but it's clear if you're British, you'll mostly say your side, and if you're Argentinian, you'd also say your side. That's why I think negotiation is in order.

Do Argie politicians use this as a hot button? Sure they do, but that doesn't necessarily mean there is no merit to their claims on the islands.

Edited March 13, 2013 by Jingthing

[transam]

Argentina democratically elected Kirchner and Argentina's justification for not feeling the islander's preferences are relevant to the nationality of the islands was already posted by me. I have no "justification" of anything here except to say that there are two strong sides to this conflict, and just because you've been fed only the one side all your life doesn't mean there isn't also merit to the other side. Like Kirchner, I wouldn't want to see anyone else die over this, and it was tragic that so many on both sides have already died.

Which side has the stronger argument or more accurate take on the history? I really don't know but it's clear if you're British, you'll mostly say your side, and if you're Argentinian, you'd also say your side. That's why I think negotiation is in order.

Do Argie politicians use this as a hot button? Sure they do, but that doesn't necessarily mean there is no merit to their claims on the islands.

Think you have lost the plot on this one.

[7by7]

As has already been shown to you, by myself, others and latterly in the excellent post by StGeorge at the top of this page, the British claim to the islands is far older than the Argentine one.

So Argentina loses the historical argument.

The only people who have any moral say on this matter are the islanders themselves; and they want to remain British.

So Argentina loses the moral argument, too.

I can assure you that were it otherwise and the islanders wanted union with Argentina then I would be arguing that they should be allowed to have it. In all probabliity the British government would, too.

The British government and the islanders are more than willing to negotiate with Argentina; but, as the record shows, Argentina refuses to negotiate unless the islanders are excluded and the British government acknowledges that Argentina has sovereignty.

The British government, rightly, say that the wishes of the islanders are paramount, and until and unless the islanders wish it the issue of sovereignty is non negotiable.

How can anyone who believes in democracy not agree?

Edited March 13, 2013 by 7by7

[Jingthing]

This just sounds like propaganda to me. Everyone knew the islanders were going to vote to stay British. It's was a PR gimmick. Nothing real and of consequence regarding this long standing conflict.

This repeated if you believe in democracy meme is just a cheap way of demonizing anyone who thinks the Argentinians have an argument for ownership.

Again the Argentinians have a democracy and their people are laying claim to the islands.

Edited March 13, 2013 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Think you have lost the plot on this one.

Because I wasn't indoctrinated in British propaganda and take a more neutral view and approve of my own government taking a more neutral view? I think not.

I get it. This is an English language board and thus is dominated by UK people and commonwealth people. So the strong bias here is understandable.

Edited March 13, 2013 by Jingthing

[7by7]

Yes, Argentina is, presently, a democracy and it is claiming the islands.

Even if it is true that the majority of Argentinians agree with their government; you are missing one very important fact: THEY DON'T LIVE IN THE FALKLANDS!

Still, you consider the democratic decision of the islanders a PR stunt and those of us defending their right to self determination to have been indoctrinated in British propaganda.

How is that a neutral view?

Why do you hate democracy so much?

[Jingthing]

...

Why do you hate democracy so much?

You are just baiting me now and I think you know it. Not cool.

[metisdead]

Off topic and baiting posts and replies have been removed.

[Jingthing]

As I've already said I think the islander's vote was a propaganda stunt and Argentina has every right to scoff at it. If the islands were a sovereign country, this situation would be very different. But clearly Argentina's position is that this conflict is between TWO countries, not three, and the islands are not one of the countries. I get that UK people would disagree with that but it is a defensible POV.

What's kind of funny to me is that I'm pretty sure if you went to Buenos Aires today and asked about the vote that most Argies would say the same thing, that the islander's vote was just a propaganda stunt, and yet somehow because I am voicing that it is a totally outrageous thing to assert. They're pretty normal people there, as normal as you Brits.

Edited March 13, 2013 by Jingthing

[7by7]

...

Why do you hate democracy so much?

You are just baiting me now and I think you know it. Not cool.

You call the expression by the islanders of their democratic wishes a PR stunt.

You say that the democratic wishes of the islanders count for nothing.

You either believe in democracy, or you don't.

The views you have expressed in this topic, and previous ones on this subject, prove that, at least as far as this issue is concerned, you don't.

You can't believe in democracy when it suits your argument and dismiss it when it counters your argument; there is a word for those who do that, begins with H and ends in ite.

[Scott]

Continued baiting will result in suspensions being given out.

This topic is not about the US.

[Jingthing]

There are plenty of grey areas in all democracies. Argentinians believe in democracy but they don't accept the voices of the Islanders which they think are rightfully Argentine islands as decisive for the resolution of the long standing ownership conflict.

Anyway, I do think the islands will eventually be Argentinian, in the fullness of time. But the British side has won for now, so go celebrate if you wish.

Kirchner, I don't agree with everything she's done in politics, but I think as a proud Argie woman she is doing what she must on the islands issue. I find her a very appealing politician and I also admired her husband. I know she was allied with Chavez but I think she is much more of a reasonable player on the international stage.

Edited March 13, 2013 by Jingthing

[transam]

Sorry my posts have been deleted because l talked comparisons. Sorry about that.

So JT, as you are it seems the only one defending the Argies, where do you think the Brits on the Islands should go. ? Or, Argies take over and Govern their way . ? . Paper bag comes to mind.

[7by7]

There are plenty of grey areas in all democracies. Argentinians believe in democracy but they don't accept the voices of the Islanders which they think are rightfully Argentine islands as decisive for the resolution of the long standing ownership conflict.

Because successive Argentine governments know that if the wishes of the islanders are considered then there is no way that the islands would ever become Argentinian.

Democratic when it suits, ignore democracy when it doesn't.

Hypocrites; as are all those who support that stance.

Let me ask you something.

The majority of UK citizens support the union and do not wish Scotland to become independent.

If the Scottish people do vote for independence in their forthcoming referendum, whose view should count; the Scots, or all citizens of the UK?

From your stated position over the wishes of the Falkland Islanders one can only conclude that you think the wishes of the Scottish people should also be ignored.

Edited March 13, 2013 by 7by7