[moodymonster]

ARGENTINA has given a warning of “a drastic change” in its quest for sovereignty over the Falklands. It has also accused Britain of bad faith for failing to enter substantive talks on the future of the islands over which the two countries went to war 24 years ago.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...244476,00.html

let's hope they don't do anything stupid and that it's just postering for domestic political gain. Maybe we should station Typhoons at RAF Mt Pleasant 'for training purposes'.

dunno what their claim is anyway:

1690 First British landing, headed by Captain Strong; islands named after Lord Falkland


1820 The United Provinces of Rio del Plata (later Argentina and Uruguay), take possession of islands despite British sovereignty claims


1833 British warships regain the Falklands


1965 UN passes resolution calling for peaceful solution to the sovereignty dispute


1980 Talks break down, with islanders rejecting a compromise solution


1982 The Falklands conflict, Argentine invasion defeated by British forces


1989 Diplomatic relations restored under newly elected Argentine President Carlos Menem


2001 Tony Blair is first British Prime Minister to visit Argentina since the conflict

we've had it since 1690, with a little interruption 1820-1833.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by moodymonster

dunno what their claim is anyway

I guess they want all the oil, gold, silver, platinum and diamonds that the islands have.

Here's hoping that they don't start anything, since I'm pretty sure that our esteemed leader will cave like a four year old girl in a WWF contest.

[moodymonster]

Originally Posted by Doofy

I guess they want all the oil, gold, silver, platinum and diamonds that the islands have.

Here's hoping that they don't start anything, since I'm pretty sure that our esteemed leader will cave like a four year old girl in a WWF contest.

He loves to send the forces into a ruck, Sierra Leone, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq etc

He'd give them the islands peacefully, but if they're attacked I don't see them not being fought for. We've got a large modern airbase there now as well, so in just a few days those islands can be seriously reinforced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Mount_Pleasant

Had they not been attacked before, Thatcher could well have handed them over as well.

[red rocket]

Britain's claim isn't as strong as you make it out to be.

Argentina has the historical facts and treaties to which the sovereignty issued can be traced. Maybe the strongest fact was that England took the islands by force from a legitimate established government of which England had recognized its independence and territorial integrity. Regarding the self determination of the peoples, what is argued by Argentina was that, when England took the islands all the Argentine settlers were removed. Furthermore, England forbade by law Argentine immigration to the islands or any land purchase by Argentine citizens. If the present population of the islands were a mixture of various nationalities as a consequence of free immigration, the principle of self determination would have more strength. But it could be argued that the same had been artificially kept British or pro Anglo-Saxon. The Argentine position is basically to treat the land separately from the inhabitants, meaning to take into account the islanders� interests and well being but not their determination.

http://www.falklands-malvinas.com/martinez.htm

Originally Posted by moodymonster

He'd give them the islands peacefully, but if they're attacked I don't see them not being fought for. We've got a large modern airbase there now as well, so in just a few days those islands can be seriously reinforced.

How could Blair possibly get away with handing the islands over peacefully when their population is so overwhelmingly opposed to it? I very much doubt Thatcher would have done it, either, having the war was good for her career.

Not that anything's likely to come of it, IMO, the chances of a conflict over the Falklands are about as high as one over Gibraltar.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by red rocket

Britain's claim isn't as strong as you make it out to be.

Now, I'm no authority on the matter, but that graphic looks like BS. According to that, in 1766 both France and the UK had de facto control over the islands. How's that possible?

[moodymonster]

There's a few islands, France had control of one, UK had control of another - neither realised? Also Spain is there at the same time.

Even by that graph, we've been there the most. Also the people on the island are British.

They had been talking to Argentina about them having it (prior to 1982), but the people on the islands didn't want to know.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by moodymonster

There's a few islands, France had control of one, UK had control of another - neither realised?

<shrug>

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Now, I'm no authority on the matter, but that graphic looks like BS. According to that, in 1766 both France and the UK had de facto control over the islands. How's that possible?

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The first settlement on the Falkland Islands, called Port Saint Louis, was founded by the French navigator and military commander Louis Antoine de Bougainville in 1764 on Berkeley Sound, in present-day Port Louis, East Falkland.
Unaware of the French presence, in January 1765, English captain John Byron explored and claimed Saunders Island, at the western end of the group, where he named the harbour of Port Egmont, and sailed near other islands, which he also claimed for King George III of Great Britain. A British settlement was built at Port Egmont in 1766. Also in 1766, Spain acquired the French colony, and after assuming effective control in 1767, placed the islands under a governor subordinate to Buenos Aires. Spain attacked Port Egmont, ending the British presence there in 1770, but Britain returned in 1771 and remained until 1774. Upon her withdrawal in 1774 Britain left behind a plaque asserting her claims, but from then on Spain ruled unchallenged, maintaining a settlement until 1811. On leaving in 1811, Spain, too, left behind a plaque asserting her claims.

Originally Posted by moodymonster

There's a few islands, France had control of one, UK had control of another - neither realised? Also Spain is there at the same time.

Even by that graph, we've been there the most. Also the people on the island are British.

They had been talking to Argentina about them having it (prior to 1982), but the people on the islands didn't want to know.

Considering the dates we're talking about here, I move that we refrain from calling Britain "the UK," as there was no United Kingdom in the present sense before 1927 (Irish independence in 1922, Act of Union with Ireland in 1800.)

They're "British," now. The Government didn't grant them full British citizenship until 1983. So, whoever's been there before, they couldn't possibly have been British.

[moodymonster]

They weren't classed as British citizens, but dependants - making them British citizens was to make clear who the islands belonged to.

Britain was on the Falklands for over a hundred years before Argentina even existed. They tried to get it in 1826, we threw them off in 1833 and have been there ever since (aside from a few months in 1982).