Falkland Islands - your view

[Ianus]

If we're going into that, then America is rightfully the Native's land. Sorry but it doesn't work like that.

sry but thats how long from coast of argentina?

[semaphore]

sry but thats how long from coast of argentina?

Irrelevant. Title to land has never been based on proximity under international law. Life simply does not work like that.

[Ianus]

I hate to enact godwins law

But Hitler thought the same thing about Poland

hey its near our country so it must be ours that is the most stupidest argument you can possible justify in this

sry but in 1850's britain forced argentina to give up the island so..

[yetgdhfgh]

Irrelevant. Title to land has never been based on proximity under international law. Life simply does not work like that.

If that was the case then france holland norway and spain belongs to the UK and the US could claim Cuba and the whole of the bahamas

I still cant believe they use that as justification as a claim to the falklands

FFS get over it Argentina stop being bamboozled by your crooked government and elect people who will look after your well being and stop this obsession over the falkland islands they was never yours in the first place and im sorry your country pride took a hit in 1982 but thats life

[Deleted]

sry but in 1850's britain forced argentina to give up the island so..

I don't remember that, can we have a source please?

[Ianus]

Irrelevant. Title to land has never been based on proximity under international law. Life simply does not work like that.

then pls learn about maritime law and terittorial waters

[semaphore]

I don't remember that, can we have a source please?

That's because it never happened. Argentina has never really controlled the Falklands.

then pls learn about maritime law and terittorial waters

Take your own advice.

[Deleted]

then pls learn about maritime law and terittorial waters

Not sure if troll.... will bite anyway.

You need to provide sources for your claims (specifically regarding Britain "forcing" Argentina to give up the Islands in the 1850's). You cannot come in to a discusion, make outrageous claims, then fail to back them up. I would also be interested to know where you are from, as the majority of posters (some europeon, some USA I believe) seem to think Argentina is wrong for staking a claim on the islands. I am not saying your opinion is wrong, it would just be nice to know if you are as bias as me

[jahasafrat]

Argentina's supposed claim to the Falklands is absurd. Proximity doesn't dictate which nation owns an island. It's like saying that Great Britain should be a French territory because France is the nearest continental nation. Utter bullshit.

[Deleted]

The Falklands were British before Argentina even existed. Argentina grew and decided that they wanted them so they invaded, we pushed them back. In the 21st Century where things are more civilized we've asked the Inhabitants what they want to do and they've said they want to remain British, they're even getting a referendum in March to make it more formal.

Argentina is of course overlooking the fact there are people living there and is really only after the oil reserves discovered a few months before they started taking their tantrums. This is about trying to grab a little extra money and to distract the Argentinians from problems at home. Although I doubt many of them are that stupid.

[Elodeon]

It's not about the people living on the islands, it's about who gets the rights to exploit natural resources around the islands, such as fish, and oil.

Britain claims economic rights to seas around some far-off islands, by virtue of having put some settlers on those islands. The few people living there of course want to remain British. I don't blame them, I wouldn't want to become part of Argentina, either.

Argentina, on the other hand, claims the economic rights around the islands by virtue of the whole thing being right in front of them.

If you were to cut through the bullshit and hypocrisy, the whole thing could be resolved rather easily, by a treaty like this:

- Britain keeps the islands and the settlers.

- Argentina gets the economic rights to what's in and under the sea.

Would Britain agree to this arrangement?

Of course not, because it's not about the settlers, and where the settlers want to be. It's about the economic rights to the sea.

[semaphore]

If you were to cut through the bullshit and hypocrisy, the whole thing could be resolved rather easily, by a treaty like this:

What an utterly bullshit and hypocritical proposal. Why should Britain let Argentina exploit the natural resources within British territory? All that belongs to the Falkland Islanders.

[yetgdhfgh]

It's not about the people living on the islands, it's about who gets the rights to exploit natural resources around the islands, such as fish, and oil.

Britain claims economic rights to seas around some far-off islands, by virtue of having put some settlers on those islands. The few people living there of course want to remain British. I don't blame them, I wouldn't want to become part of Argentina, either.

Argentina, on the other hand, claims the economic rights around the islands by virtue of the whole thing being right in front of them.

If you were to cut through the bullshit and hypocrisy, the whole thing could be resolved rather easily, by a treaty like this:

- Britain keeps the islands and the settlers.

- Argentina gets the economic rights to what's in and under the sea.

Would Britain agree to this arrangement?

Of course not, because it's not about the settlers, and where the settlers want to be. It's about the economic rights to the sea.

Why so Argentina can piss the resources up the wall like they've always done

The islands is british the resources belong to the natives who are the falkland islanders and they will happily sell those resources to the guys who look after them

Why should argentina wet there beak those resources dont belong to them it never did

Its like hey theres oil off the coast of some country then any country can go and dig them up it dont work like that

[Deleted]

It's not about the people living on the islands, it's about who gets the rights to exploit natural resources around the islands, such as fish, and oil.

Britain claims economic rights to seas around some far-off islands, by virtue of having put some settlers on those islands. The few people living there of course want to remain British. I don't blame them, I wouldn't want to become part of Argentina, either.

Argentina, on the other hand, claims the economic rights around the islands by virtue of the whole thing being right in front of them.

If you were to cut through the bullshit and hypocrisy, the whole thing could be resolved rather easily, by a treaty like this:

- Britain keeps the islands and the settlers.

- Argentina gets the economic rights to what's in and under the sea.

Would Britain agree to this arrangement?

Of course not, because it's not about the settlers, and where the settlers want to be. It's about the economic rights to the sea.

This is an interesting point, and one hard to argue with when looking at the key facts. One thing to note however, is that the UK has already stated that any profits from oil reserves (not sure regarding the fishing tbh..) would be distributed to the islanders first. I will look for a source on this, but I think the UK government doesn't stand to make much in regards to revenue other than through corporation tax at the highest level.

I am in no way saying that the UK is the "White Knight" in all of this, because what nation on earth would not fight to protect a very valuable commodity in it's territorial waters?

[Deleted]

The Argentinian government likes to use the Falkland islands to distract from domestic problems.

Also, there's oil in the area which I'm assuming they'd love to get their hands on.

[semaphore]

Why should argentina wet there beak those resources dont belong to them it never did

Its like hey theres oil off the coast of some country then any country can go and dig them up it dont work like that

Hey, if only international law works like Elodeon's mind, then all the United States need to do is "that land belong to us! okay let's compromise, you keep all your people, and we'll get all the oil under the sands". Voilà! All your oil now belongs to us!

---------- Post added 2013-01-04 at 10:11 AM ----------

This is an interesting point, and one hard to argue with when looking at the key facts.

Hard to argue with? The idea that you can arbitrarily claim a territory, and then demand all of its natural resources, is facetious.

[Deleted]

Hey, if only international law works like Elodeon's mind, then all the United States need to do is "that land belong to us! okay let's compromise, you keep all your people, and we'll get all the oil under the sands". Voilà! All your oil now belongs to us!

---------- Post added 2013-01-04 at 10:11 AM ----------


Hard to argue with? The idea that you can arbitrarily claim a territory, and then demand all of its natural resources, is facetious.

I edited my reply, and bolded the point I found hard to argue with. Sorry for the confusion!

[Elodeon]

To folks who think this disagreement has anything to do with the settlers living on the island, consider:

- The total population of the islands is 2,841.

- The amount of oil buried under them is estimated at up to 60 billion barrels, which may be worth several trillion USD.

The oil is vastly more significant than the settlers. The settlers are just being used as a distraction - as if the presence of 2,841 folks that came from Britain gives Britain the right to trillions of dollars worth of oil that's right in front of Argentina, and as far away from Britain as could be.

Well, it turns out Britain has the better navy, so heh, it does.

[semaphore]

I edited my reply, and bolded the point I found hard to argue with. Sorry for the confusion!

That makes more sense, but then I feel like it's a pointless thing to argue. Britain asserted sovereignty over the Falklands long before it had any economic value. That there is economic value in a piece of land we traditionally own, does not make us hypocrites for defending our own national territory.

[Deleted]

Also, as far as the "the islands are closer to Argentina than to England" angle. I'm assuming those spouting that one will be in favor of a UN-backed Swedish invasion of Åland? After all, not only is the largest island much closer to the Swedish mainland, most people on those islands actually speak Swedish rather than Finnish...