# Falkland Islands



## yoli_gee

Hi,
Am I right to think that the Faukland Islands are called Islas Malvinas in Spanish?
Thanks very much
Yoli_gee


----------



## Eugin

Efectivamente, Yoli_gee, Islas Malvinas (en el sur de Argentina, cerca de la Antártida) son las Faukland Islands en inglés!
Suerte!
Eugin


----------



## lauranazario

Hola nuevamente, Yoli.

Si quieres leer más sobre la guerra de las islas Malvinas/Falklands (1982), encontrarás datos aquí: http://www.yendor.com/vanished/falklands-war.html

Saludos,
LN


----------



## Dandee

yoli_gee said:
			
		

> Hi,
> Am I right to think that the Faukland Islands are called Islas Malvinas in Spanish?
> Thanks very much
> Yoli_gee


 
Las islas Malvinas son Argentinas y están siendo ocupadas desde hace más de un siglo por Inglaterra. Los Ingleses les llaman Falklands, pero su nombre real es islas Malvinas porque así las llamamos en Argentina nosotros, los dueños de todo derecho legítimo sobre ellas.

Sin rencores.

Dandee .


----------



## ines

Dandee said:
			
		

> Las islas Malvinas son Argentinas y están siendo ocupadas desde hace más de un siglo por Inglaterra. Los Ingleses les llaman Falklands, pero su nombre real es islas Malvinas porque así las llamamos en Argentina nosotros, los dueños de todo derecho legítimo sobre ellas.
> 
> Sin rencores.
> 
> Dandee .



Totalmente de acuerdo con lo que decís, Dandee, incluyendo el "sin rencores".


----------



## EVAVIGIL

yoli_gee said:
			
		

> Hi,
> Am I right to think that the Faukland   Islands are called Islas Malvinas in Spanish?
> Thanks very much
> Yoli_gee



Falkland Islands.  
Since there is an ongoing dispute, which even led to a war back in 1982, we Argentinians call them Islas Malvinas, while the British call them something different.  
Cheers!
EVA.


----------



## cuchuflete

The passion evident in these posts is stirring.  One of my two favorite Argentine writers,
the magnificent J.L. Borges, had this to say about the war:
 "la de dos calvos peleándose por un peine"



Cuchu


----------



## EVAVIGIL

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> The passion evident in these posts is stirring.  One of my two favorite Argentine writers,
> the magnificent J.L. Borges, had this to say about the war:
> "la de dos calvos peleándose por un peine"
> 
> 
> 
> Cuchu



Who is the other one?  
EVA.


----------



## Neru

Dandee said:
			
		

> Las islas Malvinas son Argentinas y *están siendo ocupadas* desde hace más de un siglo por Inglaterra. Los Ingleses les llaman Falklands, pero *su nombre real* es islas Malvinas porque así las llamamos en Argentina nosotros, *los dueños de todo derecho* legítimo sobre ellas.


Bueno, supongo que todo depende del color del cristal con que se mire la realidad...

No es que me importe mucho este tema, la verdad, pero creo que siempre es preferible que la gente pueda ver también la otra cara de la moneda.

Por eso, aquí pongo otra *versión* de la historia:

"Although first sighted by an English navigator in *1592*, the first landing (*English*) did not occur until almost a century later in 1690, and the first settlement (*French*) was not established until 1764. The colony was turned over to *Spain* two years later and the islands have since been the subject of a territorial dispute, first between *Britain* and Spain, then between Britain and *Argentina*. The UK asserted its claim to the islands by establishing a naval garrison there in *1833*. Argentina *invaded* the islands on 2 April 1982. The British *responded* with an expeditionary force that landed seven weeks later and after fierce fighting forced Argentine surrender on 14 June 1982."

Saludos.


----------



## EVAVIGIL

Creo que aquí lo importante es que un nombre no es la traducción del otro; sino que son dos formas diferentes de llamar a la mismas islas.
Saluditos.
EVA.


----------



## Artrella

EVAVIGIL said:
			
		

> Creo que aquí lo importante es que un nombre no es la traducción del otro; sino que son dos formas diferentes de llamar a la mismas islas.
> Saluditos.
> EVA.





Exacto!! No es que en inglés se diga *Falklands* y en español *Malvinas*.  Son dos nombres distintos para este lugar tan querido  tanto por los ingleses como por nosotros.


----------



## cuchuflete

Artrella said:
			
		

> Exacto!! No es que en inglés se diga *Falklands* y en español *Malvinas*.  Son dos nombres distintos para este lugar *tan querido * tanto por los ingleses como por nosotros.



Os pido un consejo...creo que sería mejor copiar o trasladar este hilo al foro de Cultura, para seguir la conversación.

Tengo unas ganas de discutir esto de "tan querido" que ha escrito Artrella.
¿Qué opináis gente?  Digo de la mudanza a cultura...


----------



## cuchuflete

Neru said:
			
		

> Bueno, supongo que todo depende del color del cristal con que se mire la realidad...
> 
> No es que me importe mucho este tema, la verdad, pero creo que siempre es preferible que la gente pueda ver también la otra cara de la moneda.
> 
> Por eso, aquí pongo otra *versión* de la historia:
> 
> "Although first sighted by an English navigator in *1592*, the first landing (*English*) did not occur until almost a century later in 1690, and the first settlement (*French*) was not established until 1764. The colony was turned over to *Spain* two years later and the islands have since been the subject of a territorial dispute, first between *Britain* and Spain, then between Britain and *Argentina*. The UK asserted its claim to the islands by establishing a naval garrison there in *1833*. Argentina *invaded* the islands on 2 April 1982. The British *responded* with an expeditionary force that landed seven weeks later and* after fierce fighting* forced Argentine surrender on 14 June 1982."
> 
> Saludos.



You and I must have read different news reports.  Any interest in continuing the non-linguistic discussion in the Culture forum?

thanks,
Cuchu


----------



## Whisky con ron

Pero si es una roca!

Estamos como Gibraltar... Esto me recuerda un chiste de la fiebre aftosa (foot and mouth disease, en inglés)...

Dos españoles están en una granja fuera de un corral con cerdos y uno dice "ahora con la epidemia de fiebre aftosa en Gran Bretaña tenemos que separar los cerdos españoles de los británicos para evitar contagios"... y el otro le dice "y como vamos a reconocer cuales son los cerdos británicos y cuales los españoles?" y el otro contesta "muy facil, mira.."... y grita "GIBRALTAR ESPAñOL!!!" Y dos o tres cerdos voltean y dicen "WHAT!!!????"....


----------



## EVAVIGIL

Please, Cuchuflete, who is the other Argentine writer? Sábato, Cortazar, Mujica Láinez?
Give us a clue!
EVA.


----------



## Whisky con ron

Múdalo cuchu


----------



## yoli_gee

Well, that was all very informative, starting by the way I had spelled Falklands to the way the word is not a translation, but a different name, which should have been obvious given the difference between both names.  

I was aware of the Guerra de las Malvinas, but didn't realize the names were part of the dispute.

Thanks very much to all of you.  My only thought on the subject is that when I lived in the UK no-one knew what the Islas Malvinas were so I "learned" to call them Falklands, so I got used to calling them like that without realising of the political implications.  I wish I had known then!  In any case, Islas Malvinas sounds so much better than Falklands... 

Thanks again!


----------



## Neru

Hi Cuchu,

Perhaps this thread would be better off in the Culture forum, you're right.
I don't think I'll participate myself, though... I just wanted to offer the other side of the argument to some fairly strong statements.

By the way, here is the source of the text in my previous post:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/fk.html (yes, the CIA Handbook).

(PS: If vic_us sees this thread maybe he'll come back  ).


----------



## Whisky con ron

Strong statements and no arguments... that's the british way, yeap...


----------



## Neru

Well, it's not compulsory to live here if you don't like the British way. 

The strong statements I was referring to are these:

_Las islas Malvinas son Argentinas y *están siendo ocupadas* desde hace más de un siglo por Inglaterra. Los Ingleses les llaman Falklands, pero *su nombre real* es islas Malvinas porque así las llamamos en Argentina nosotros, *los dueños de todo derecho* legítimo sobre ellas._

I only wanted to give a different perspective on the topic (not my own by the way), which seems a fairly reasonable thing to do.


----------



## Whisky con ron

I never said I didn't like it...  Definitely thought it, yes, but didn't say it!  ;-)


----------



## Neru

Hehe, I didn't say I liked it either. ;-)


----------



## cuchuflete

EVAVIGIL said:
			
		

> Please, Cuchuflete, who is the other Argentine writer? Sábato, Cort*á*zar, Mujica Láinez?
> Give us a clue!
> EVA.


Si juegas a rayuela conmigo, tal vez te digo

Ah, la persistencia...me hace pensar en la continuidad de los parques de BsAs!

Damos un paseo...al zoológico...para ver los axolotl.

¿Basta ya?

saludos,
Cuchu


----------



## belén

No sé como lo haces, Cuchu, pero has acertado mis dos cuentos preferidos del susodicho.


----------



## lauranazario

Neru said:
			
		

> Hi Cuchu,
> Perhaps this thread would be better off in the Culture forum, you're right.



Well... since Cuchu forgot to transfer this thread to Culture, I'll do it myself. 

Saludos,
LN


----------



## cuchuflete

Whisky con ron said:
			
		

> Strong statements and no arguments... that's the british way, yeap...



Whisky...
Shall we try to keep this civil, please?

To all:  We have two simple choices...either debate the facts, without personal jibes or attacks on the character of nations, or stop the conversation.  I would prefer the former.  

Wearing that unfashionable Moderator's hat,
Cuchuflete


----------



## cuchuflete

OK, now that we are out of the constraints of the language forum, I propose that the
great majority of British people had never heard of the Falklands before 1982, and that
the professed "love" of the Argentine people for the Malvinas is also a myth.

Aside from national ego and pride, and the prospect of undersea petroleum=money,
I don't think these bits of rock would matter very much to either nation.

The people who live on the Islands have made their wishes known, but self-determination is a principle we all seem to embrace or ignore depending on other interests. When I was working in Buenos Aires in 1977, a local newspaper posted front page headlines about one woman...in her 80's or 90's I believe, who was quoted as saying that the islands belonged to one nation.  The rest of the populace seemed not to notice or care, and expressed a preference for different ownership.  

I have no personal preference...I just find the entire debate illustrative of some interesting human and political characteristics.

Does it matter to anyone that the cost in lives of the 1982 events was so great?

Videla was not the first, nor will he have been the last, to start a nationalistic war to divert attention from other failures.  He did wonders for M. Thatcher's political career.

That's enough from me.  Now I'll sit back and learn.

saludos,
Cuchu

PS- the document calling the fighting fierce was probably written by someone quite far away, based on sources quite far away.....etc.


----------



## Neru

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> OK, now that we are out of the constraints of the language forum, I propose that the
> great majority of British people had never heard of the Falklands before 1982, and that
> the professed "love" of the Argentine people for the Malvinas is also a myth.


I'm sure that most British people didn't have the slightest idea what or where the Falkland Islands were.



			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Videla was not the first, nor will he have been the last, to start a nationalistic war to divert attention from other failures. He did wonders for M. Thatcher's political career.


Unfortunately, yes.  Winning a phoney war is a great way to boost your election campaign.



			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> PS- the document calling the fighting fierce was probably written by someone quite far away, based on sources quite far away.....etc.


 ...in Washington, I suppose.


----------



## cuchuflete

Neru said:
			
		

> I'm sure that most British people didn't have the slightest idea what or where the Falkland Islands were.
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, yes.  Winning a phoney war is a great way to boost your election campaign.
> 
> *  ...in Washington, I suppose*.



You and I read it precisely the same way.  That's why one of my favorite oxymorons is "military intelligence".

I still am amazed that the battle of national egos continues, and no one seems to care to discuss the costs, in taxpayer funds, and more importantly, in human lives, of the last round, which maintained the status quo, and then was quickly forgotten by most of the world.

saludos,
Cuchu


----------



## Neru

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> I still am amazed that the battle of national egos continues, and no one seems to care to discuss the costs, in taxpayer funds, and more importantly, in human lives, of the last round, which maintained the status quo, and then was quickly forgotten by most of the world.
> 
> saludos,
> Cuchu


*Totalmente* de acuerdo. 

Saludos.


----------



## cuchuflete

I suggest a look at this:  http://www.yendor.com/vanished/falklands-war.html

It appears to be pretty even-handed in presenting both the Argentine and British sides of the story.

It leads me to correct an error I made in an earlier post:  It was General Galtieri, and not Jorge Videla, who was in power at the time.  Sorry for that.

This site estimates the cost at [not clear if in then-current funds, or inflation adjusted]
2 billion dollars, and total loss of life, including civilians, at about 900.  There is no count of total wounded.  

From this source, it does appear that some of the fighting was fierce, by both sides.

Anyone who chooses to believe their current convictions that there is one and only one
'true' claim to these territories will not like what is presented in the cited web page.
The author, who appears to be Argentine, gives data explaining why there has been contention about ownership for well over 100 years.

saludos,
Cuchu


----------



## alc112

Dandee said:
			
		

> Las islas Malvinas son Argentinas y están siendo ocupadas desde hace más de un siglo por Inglaterra. Los Ingleses les llaman Falklands, pero su nombre real es islas Malvinas porque así las llamamos en Argentina nosotros, los dueños de todo derecho legítimo sobre ellas.
> 
> Sin rencores.
> 
> Dandee .


 
Estoyde acuerdo
"Las Malvinas Son Argentinas"
Lo que no me queda claro es porqué el gobierno  prohibió todo lo que sea inglés en el país, ¿alguien podría explicarme?
Saludos


----------



## Marc1

Dandee said:
			
		

> Las islas Malvinas son Argentinas y están siendo ocupadas desde hace más de un siglo por Inglaterra. Los Ingleses les llaman Falklands, pero su nombre real es islas Malvinas porque así las llamamos en Argentina nosotros, los dueños de todo derecho legítimo sobre ellas.
> 
> Sin rencores.
> 
> Dandee .




Un pequeño analisis de la historia real de las Islas muestra una realidad diferente.
Los Ingleses tomaron lo que Argentina descartó como inútil. Poblaron la Isla con Ingleses y la anexaron a su territorio desde mas de un siglo.

Argentina tiene un rerclamo hipotético debido a la geografía de la plataforma continental, pero no tiene recalmo historico ni cultural, los habitantes son Ingelses y no quieren saber nada con Argentina. 

La guerra, una de los complot del vaticano mas desafortunados, creada de común acuerdo enter Tatcher Galtieri Y el Papa, salió mal porque cada uno hizo lo que quiso y no se atuvo al arreglo inicial de amagar con guerra pero no entrar en ella y el Papa iba a ser el "salvador" y pacificar las partes, todos salen ganando.

Tatcher, asesina en masa, y merecedora de la horca no convalida las demandas de Argentina. Two wrongs don't make a right.


----------



## Javier-Vega

Perdon por meter mi cuchara, pero a mi me parece bastante absurdo (y hasta ridiculo) darle importancia a quienes fueron los primeros en "descubrir" las islas (espan~oles, ingleses, etc). Eso deberia ser irrelevante. Seguramente los primeros fueron los indios que habitaban dichas islas (y que probablemente fueron exterminados o murieron debido a enfermedades introducidas por los europeos). A menos, claro, que fueran islas deshabitadas pero me parece poco probable.

Si realmente las islas Malvinas estan pobladas por ingleses, creo que ese es un punto importante a tomar en cuenta. Sin embargo, no estoy de acuerdo en que Inglaterra tenga un territorio en tan lejanas tierras y tan cerca de la costa de Argentina. Posiblemente una solucion intermedia seria que las islas Malvinas se transformaran en un pais independiente (algo asi como Canada, Australia, etc) y llegaran a un acuerdo justo con Argentina sobre las zonas maritimas que corresponden a cada pais.
Claro, eso yo lo veo como mexicano sin tener ningun interes practico ni sentimiento patriotico involucrado en el asunto.


----------



## cuchuflete

Hola Javier-Vega,

Tal vez sería de interés...



> 1522, 1592
> 
> Las versiones argentinas señalan que diversos navegantes españoles y portugueses fueron los primeros en divisar las islas. El caso más documentado es el de Esteban Gómez en el buque San Antonio de la famosa expedición española encabezada por Magallanes, que descubre las islas mientras volvía a España en 1522. La historiadora argentina María Laura San Martino de Dromi da una lista de mapas fechados entre 1522 y 1561 que muestran a las Malvinas a cierta distancia de la costa continental.
> 
> Según la Encyclopedia Britannica (una fuente estadounidense probablemente proclive hacia los ingleses), el navegante inglés John Davis en el Desire (1592) *puede* (notar el énfasis) haber sido la primera persona en ver las Falklands.
> 
> Circa 1600
> El holandés Sebald de Weerdt hace el primer avistaje indiscutido de las islas.
> 
> 1690
> El capitán inglés John Strong, a la cabeza de una expedición inglesa, hace el primer desembarco documentado en las islas, en 1690. Los británicos reclaman las islas para la corona y dan al estrecho entre las islas principales el nombre del vizconde Falkland, un funcionario naval británico. El nombre fue luego aplicado a todo el conjunto de las islas.


----------



## cuchuflete

y más.......



> 1764
> El navegante francés Louis-Antoine de Bougainville funda la primera instalación permanente, en la East Falkland [Malvina Oriental]
> 
> En los años siguientes, la pesquería francesa es operada por gente de St. Malo (y de allí "Iles Malouines", de donde se deriva el nombre argentino "Islas Malvinas").
> 
> 1765
> Los británicos son los primeros en establecerse en la West Falkland [Malvina Occidental].
> 
> 1767
> Los españoles compran Port Louis, el establecimiento francés en la East Falkland [Malvina Oriental]. Según España, esto implica el reconocimiento por parte de Francia de los derechos españoles sobre la tierra.


----------



## cuchuflete

y sigue la historia...



> 1770
> Una flotilla española llega a las islas y pide a los ingleses que se retiren. A la primera solicitud, el oficial británico a cargo de la guarnición, un Capitán Hunt, respondió:
> 
> ``He recibido sus cartas firmadas por el oficial, informándome de que estas islas y sus costas pertenecen al Rey de España, vuestro Señor. Debo en respuesta informarle que dichas islas pertenecen a Su Majestad Británica, mi Señor, por derecho de descubrimiento así también como de habitación, y que los súbditos de ninguna otra potencia pueden tener derecho alguno para establecerse en dichas islas sin permiso de Su Majestad Británica o sin tomar juramento de lealtad y someterse al gobierno de Su Majestad como súbditos de la Corona de Gran Bretaña.''
> 
> Esta es la primera señal documentada que hemos encontrado sobre el conflicto entre Gran Bretaña y España en relación con las islas.
> 
> Poco después los españoles volvieron a las islas con una fuerza mucho mayor, ``convenciendo'' a la guarnición británica de dejar las islas el 14 de julio de 1770.
> 
> [Fuente: 'An account of the last expedition to Port Egmont in the Falkland Islands' ('Una crónica de la última expedición a Port Egmont en las Islas Falkland'), por Bernard Penrose, publicado en Universal Magazine, abril de 1775.]
> 
> 1771
> El destacamento británico en la West Falkland [Malvina Occidental] es restablecido luego de amenazas de guerra.


----------



## cuchuflete

por si acaso...


> 1774
> Los británicos se retiran de las islas (por razones económicas según las fuentes británicas). España mantiene las instalaciones en la East Falkland, que llamó Isla Soledad, hasta 1811, momento en el que España está a punto de perder el control de sus colonias en América.
> 
> 1816
> Hace su aparición en la escena histórica la Argentina independiente.
> 
> 1820
> El gobierno de Buenos Aires, que había declarado su independencia de España en 1816, proclama por primera vez su soberanía sobre las Falklands [Malvinas].
> 
> 1828
> El caudillo y luego gobernador de Buenos Aires Juan Manuel de Rosas envía un gobernador, Vernet, junto con una guarnición y pobladores para trabajos de servicio en las islas. Primer establecimiento argentino documentado.
> 
> 1831
> El buque de guerra USS Lexington destruye las instalaciones argentinas en la East Falkland [Malvina Oriental] en represalia por el arresto de tres buques estadounidenses que habían estado cazando focas en la zona.
> 
> 1833
> Temiendo que los estadounidenses fueran a tomar las islas, los británicos recuerdan la expedición del siglo XVII, reinvaden las islas, deponen por la fuerza a Vernet y envían a los argentinos de vuelta al continente, aunque sin haber tenido que disparar un tiro.


----------



## cuchuflete

Todo esto es de La Galería de los Desaparecidos, un sitio web hecho por un Argentino.

http://www.yendor.com/vanished/s-index.html

Es muy interesante.  Después de haberlo leído, entiendo mejor las dos perspectivas.

Un saludo,
Cuchuflete


----------



## Neru

Javier-Vega said:
			
		

> Perdon por meter mi cuchara, pero a mi me parece bastante absurdo (y hasta ridiculo) darle importancia a quienes fueron los primeros en "descubrir" las islas (espan~oles, ingleses, etc). Eso deberia ser irrelevante.


Pues a mí lo que me parece '_bastante absurdo (y hasta ridículo)' _es que aún haya gente que sigue diciendo cosas como éstas:

_"Las islas Malvinas son Argentinas y *están siendo ocupadas* desde hace más de un siglo por Inglaterra. Los Ingleses les llaman Falklands, pero *su nombre real* es islas Malvinas porque así las llamamos en Argentina nosotros, *los dueños de todo derecho legítimo* sobre ellas."_

...y no creo que sea irrelevante (ni mucho menos) dar un poco de historia sobre las islas (ojo que no es lo mismo que darle importancia).

Por cierto, no es _Inglaterra_ (ni _los ingleses) a _que pertenece ese territorio, sino el Reino Unido (somos 4 paises distintos).

_"Posiblemente una solucion intermedia seria que las islas Malvinas se transformaran en un pais independiente (algo asi como Canada, Australia, etc) y llegaran a un acuerdo justo con Argentina sobre las zonas maritimas que corresponden a cada pais."_

Estoy de acuerdo con eso (...pero no me imagino que la gente de esas islas sienta igual).

Saludos.


----------



## Marc1

Javier-Vega said:
			
		

> Perdon por meter mi cuchara, pero a mi me parece bastante absurdo (y hasta ridiculo) darle importancia a quienes fueron los primeros en "descubrir" las islas (espan~oles, ingleses, etc). Eso deberia ser irrelevante. Seguramente los primeros fueron los indios que habitaban dichas islas (y que probablemente fueron exterminados o murieron debido a enfermedades introducidas por los europeos). A menos, claro, que fueran islas deshabitadas pero me parece poco probable.
> 
> Si realmente las islas Malvinas estan pobladas por ingleses, creo que ese es un punto importante a tomar en cuenta. Sin embargo, no estoy de acuerdo en que Inglaterra tenga un territorio en tan lejanas tierras y tan cerca de la costa de Argentina. Posiblemente una solucion intermedia seria que las islas Malvinas se transformaran en un pais independiente (algo asi como Canada, Australia, etc) y llegaran a un acuerdo justo con Argentina sobre las zonas maritimas que corresponden a cada pais.
> Claro, eso yo lo veo como mexicano sin tener ningun interes practico ni sentimiento patriotico involucrado en el asunto.



A la luz de los datos historicos ofrecidos por Cuchu, La Argentina es usurpadora de los derechos Españoles y por lo tanto el país con derecho mas antiguo es España. Argentina juega un rol oportunista e intrascendente en la vida e historia de la isla que son Inglesas por derecho de colonización, de conquista y tal vez hasta de descubrimiento. (Inglaterra era "Gran Bretania" en el siglo 18? Lo dudo pero no lo se realaemte. Tal vez alguno de nuestros colegas británicos nos puede dar una reseña histórica de la Gran Bretania. )

La historia de los indios muertos suena algo melodramática a menos que tengas información al respecto, seria interesante saber quine habitaba las islas.

Claro que con ese criterio el mapa del mundo debería cambiar completamente. Quine es el "dueño" de Italia? España? Inglaterra? 

Los aborígenes Australianos reclaman propiedad de la tierra, pero ellos tambión son invasores venidos de Papua y ellos mataron a los habitantes anteriores a ellos, y son responsables de la extinción de un sinnumero de animales nativos a las fauces de los perros domésticos que trajeron con ellos del Asia, el dingo... sin contar las quemazones indiscriminadas del sotobosque con el fin de la caza.

Son los indios sud americanos los habitantes originales? Porcierto que no, son nómades venidos del asia sobre el estrecho de bering alaska etc. Por cierto que con semejante caminata se merecen un premio pero no pueden reclamar derecho a primero. aunque tal vez al mas antiguo .... pero entonces los ingleses son los que tiene el derecho por estar mas tiempo y por colonizar primero las islas.

Alguno visitó las islas Malvians?
Porcierto que no hay sitio mas desolador desamparado y destituto en todo el resto del mundo. Los colonos merecen ser dejados en paz y respetados por lo que son, Ingleses de pura cepa y corajudos por vivir en semejante lugar.


----------



## Javier-Vega

A ver, vamos por partes...

Yo si creo que los aborigenes australianos y los indios sudamericanos deben tener derechos especiales en sus paises correspondientes. Pero el discutir eso nos sacaria totalmente del tema.

Lo que dije de los indios de las Malvinas (inexistentes o no) puede ser o no melodramatico. Igualmente melodramatico es utilizar la historia de viajes y descubrimientos del siglo XVI o XVII que no dejaron rastros en las islas para discutir una disputa concreta entre dos paises en la actualidad. A eso precisamente me referia con lo de "absurdo (y hasta ridiculo)". Lo de los indios lo dije para llevar ese tipo de argumentos a su conclusion logica. Concuerdo en que lo mas importante aqui son los habitantes presentes de las islas.

Sin embargo, aunque si estoy de acuerdo en que los colonos que habitan las islas deben de tener mucho que decir en esto, no asi la parte europea del Reino Unido (perdon por la confusion; y los habitantes de las Malvinas que serian? britanicos? reinounidenses?). Hay que tomar en cuenta tambien que las Malvinas (igual que todas las islas que posee el imperio britanico en todo el mundo) son una extension de su poder. No veo ninguna justificacion para que el Reino Unido sea una potencia regional en el cono Sur justo enfrente de las costas de Argentina. Por eso me parece que la solucion correcta es esa: que los colonos formen su pais independiente y que con ayuda de la ONU lleguen a un arreglo justo con Argentina.


----------



## EVAVIGIL

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Si juegas a rayuela conmigo, tal vez te digo
> 
> Ah, la persistencia...me hace pensar en la continuidad de los parques de BsAs!
> 
> Damos un paseo...al zoológico...para ver los axolotl.
> 
> ¿Basta ya?
> 
> saludos,
> Cuchu



Thanks for your answer, Cuchu!  
I was so adamant I even forgot an accent!  
Cheers!
EVA.


----------



## Benjy

Javier-Vega said:
			
		

> A ver, vamos por partes...
> 
> Yo si creo que los aborigenes australianos y los indios sudamericanos deben tener derechos especiales en sus paises correspondientes. Pero el discutir eso nos sacaria totalmente del tema.
> 
> Lo que dije de los indios de las Malvinas (inexistentes o no) puede ser o no melodramatico. Igualmente melodramatico es utilizar la historia de viajes y descubrimientos del siglo XVI o XVII que no dejaron rastros en las islas para discutir una disputa concreta entre dos paises en la actualidad. A eso precisamente me referia con lo de "absurdo (y hasta ridiculo)". Lo de los indios lo dije para llevar ese tipo de argumentos a su conclusion logica. Concuerdo en que lo mas importante aqui son los habitantes presentes de las islas.
> 
> Sin embargo, aunque si estoy de acuerdo en que los colonos que habitan las islas deben de tener mucho que decir en esto, no asi la parte europea del Reino Unido (perdon por la confusion; y los habitantes de las Malvinas que serian? britanicos? reinounidenses?). Hay que tomar en cuenta tambien que las Malvinas (igual que todas las islas que posee el imperio britanico en todo el mundo) son una extension de su poder. No veo ninguna justificacion para que el Reino Unido sea una potencia regional en el cono Sur justo enfrente de las costas de Argentina. Por eso me parece que la solucion correcta es esa: que los colonos formen su pais independiente y que con ayuda de la ONU lleguen a un arreglo justo con Argentina.



exactly.. let the islanders have their say. and they have said it. they want to stay under british rule :s if they really wanted a change don't you think we would have seen one already? it's not as if the evil empire is crushing them with its almighty iron fist. canada, australia... they wanted a change, so they got one.


----------



## Whisky con ron

Pregunto por no dejar: Alguien se ha fijado de que debajo de las islas Malvinas (perdón si ofendo a alguien por usar este nombre) hay un reservorio inmenso de gas? Es quizás uno de los reservorios más grandes de suramérica. 

Sólo hay que saber un poco de derecho internacional con respecto a plataformas marítimas y recursos naturales para entender el "amor" que sienten algunos países por estas islas....


----------



## Neru

Wahey, another natural resources conspiracy theory.
I don't know where the supposed 'love' for those islands is but it certainly isn't here.
Good luck to anyone who wants to live there, I say.


----------



## Whisky con ron

Let's keep it civil, remember.

No conspiracy theory, but a fact, thank you very much.

BTW, the reservoir is called "Malvinas".  Oh the irony....


----------



## alc112

Parece ser que es inevitable que Argentinos e ingleses tengamos distintos puntos de vista y nos estemos de alguna manera peleando. Al fín y al cabo son dos pedasos de tierra prácticamente inhabitables.


----------



## Neru

Hehe, well, maybe those nasty 'ingleses' have a different name for the _reservoir._
One man's conspiracy theory is another's *set-in-stone truth*, that's for sure.
BTW, with reference to your 'joke' in a previous message in this thread, I'm sure that they'd have more likely recognised the British pigs by the lack of reaction to the shout: "GIBRALTAR ESPAñOL!" ...or perhaps just a few muffled laughs.


----------



## Neru

alc112 said:
			
		

> Al fín y al cabo son dos pedasos de tierra prácticamente inhabitables.


I totally agree with you, Alc.


----------



## Whisky con ron

May I invite you to open this report and go to page 246?  

It is a report from the International Energy Agency, which I believe are not known for their conspiracy theories....


----------



## cuchuflete

alc112 said:
			
		

> Parece ser que es inevitable que Argentinos e ingleses tengamos distintos puntos de vista y nos estemos de alguna manera peleando. Al fín y al cabo son dos peda*z*os de tierra prácticamente inhabitables.



Lo que me sorprende es eso- Cuando empezó la guerra,_ *parece que*_ la gran mayoría de los Argentinos, con patriotismo completamente normal, apoyaban a Galtieri y sus colegas...la misma chusma responsable por los desaparecidos, la represión, el miedo.

Los ingleses, con el mismo patriotismo completamente normal, que estaban a punto de echar a la Thatcher, la prestaban su apoyo.


Al fin de la guerra habían casi mil seres humanos muertos,  y no por los 1800 habitantes de las islas, sino por egoísmo nacionalista.

Lamentable.

C.


----------



## cuchuflete

As I said yesterday, in post #28,



> Aside from national ego and pride, and the prospect of undersea petroleum=money_,
> I don't think these bits of rock would matter very much to either nation._


----------



## Neru

Whisky con ron said:
			
		

> May I invite you to open this report and go to page 246?


Hi. I can't see a link to any report, although I have re-read the previous messages left by Cuchuflete.
If the British and Argentine *government's* only interest in those islands is due to the potential energy resources, then obviously they're as bad as each other... which was kind of my point (see post 29).
By the way, I am not even English, but I think if someone makes spurious comments like the ones at the beginning of this thread, then it's only reasonable to put forward a different point of view.
I suppose some people are always going to want to take sides, due to their cultural allegiances...
I'm done in this thread now, anyway.
Saludos.


----------



## Marc1

Neru said:
			
		

> Hi. I can't see a link to any report, although I have re-read the previous messages left by Cuchuflete.
> If the British and Argentine *government's* only interest in those islands is due to the potential energy resources, then obviously they're as bad as each other... which was kind of my point (see post 29).
> By the way, I am not even English, but I think if someone makes spurious comments like the ones at the beginning of this thread, then it's only reasonable to put forward a different point of view.
> I suppose some people are always going to want to take sides, due to their cultural allegiances...
> I'm done in this thread now, anyway.
> Saludos.



The sad part is that the 1982 Falkland's war was engineered to prop up two ailing governments Thatcher and Galtieri, in cahoots with the Pope and has nothing to do with energy resources. At the time in Argentina the local propaganda machine was telling the Argentineans, The "Malvinas" are rich in Krill and the English want it for themselves. 
The propaganda flashes use to portray the picture of a prawn or shrimp, giving the idea it was some sort of rich fishing ground. The reality is that Krill is a rather microscopic little crustacean that as far as I know can only be used for feeding fish in fish farms and it's economic importance is rather limited.
Of course you never get the truth come in the way of a good story.
So the new theory is that there is Oil in the sea ... hehe, have you ever gone on a ship around the islands? Good luck working an oil rig in such waters, will make the North Sea look like Laguna de Chascomús.

There is only one explanation for the Malvinas war, a political plot among three head of state that had but pure contempt for their fellow man and sent 1000 kids to the bottom of the ocean. All three should be hang in a public ceremony to be held on the islands.


----------



## Lems

Marc1 said:
			
		

> (...)
> There is only one explanation for the Malvinas war, a political plot among three head of state that had but pure contempt for their fellow man and sent 1000 kids to the bottom of the ocean. All three should be hang in a public ceremony to be held on the islands.


Good point, Marc!

But lets keep it in our fantasy and stop further violence, like Ghandi proposed.  

Lems
____________________________________________________________
There is no reason why someone may want to have a computer at home.
_Ken Olson, president and founder of Digital Equipment Corp.,1977_


----------



## zebedee

Marc1 said:
			
		

> Of course you never let the truth come in the way of a good story.
> 
> There is only one explanation for the Malvinas war, a political plot among three head of state that had but pure contempt for their fellow man and sent 1000 kids to the bottom of the ocean. All three should be hang in a public ceremony to be held on the islands.




I think you've summed up yourself your own theory!

regards,
zeb


----------



## Marc1

zebedee said:
			
		

> I think you've summed up yourself your own theory!



Zeb, I happen to know personally the diplomat on diuty in Genevra at the time and that has written proof of what I said.
Do you have grounds to dismiss my theory? 
Of you just don't like it? Friend with Mrs MT perhaps?


----------



## zebedee

Marc1 said:
			
		

> Zeb, I happen to know personally the diplomat on diutyduty in Genevra at the time and thatwho has written proof of what I said.
> Do you have grounds to dismiss my theory?
> Ofr you just don't like it? Friend with Mrs MT perhaps?



Hang on while I wipe the tears of laughter from my face at the thought of the Iron Lady having any friends!
Hope you don't mind me making a few little corrections to your generally good English.
zeb


----------



## cuchuflete

This is interesting.  One forero (#1) has made a rather impressive claim, without giving proof. Another forero (#2) questions the claim.  #1 then says he has a friend who has proof, but still doesn't provide proof to #2, rather the assertion that proof exists.  To deflect attention from the lack of *visible* proof, #1 challenges #2 to dis-prove what was never proved in the first place.

It very much reminds me of two nations claiming a piece of rock in the South Atlantic,
with one saying, "It's mine because my claims are legitimate."

May I suggest that this particular sub-argument is not going to be resolved here, and that perhaps it might benefit from either a new thread, or a prolonged vacation?

As you wish, Lady and Gentleman.

Saludos amistosos para los dos,
Cuchu


----------



## zebedee

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> This is interesting.  One forero (#1) has made a rather impressive claim, without giving proof. Another forero (#2) questions the claim.  #1 then says he has a friend who has proof, but still doesn't provide proof to #2, rather the assertion that proof exists.  To deflect attention from the lack of *visible* proof, #1 challenges #2 to dis-prove what was never proved in the first place.
> 
> It very much reminds me of two nations claiming a piece of rock in the South Atlantic,
> with one saying, "It's mine because my claims are legitimate."
> 
> May I suggest that this particular sub-argument is not going to be resolved here, and that perhaps it might benefit from either a new thread, or a prolonged vacation?
> 
> As you wish, Lady and Gentleman.
> 
> Saludos amistosos para los dos,
> Cuchu



I agree with you there, Cuchu, a prolonged vacation sounds just the ticket. Meet you for poolside cocktails.

I've just remembered, Mrs. T does have a friend. Goes by the name of "Smiley" Tony Blair.

zeb


----------



## cuchuflete

Lest I fail to digress,



> *Blair* [bler]*A*_noun_
> *1 *Blair, Tony_Blair, Anthony_Charles_Lynton_Blair
> Category Tree:entity╚object; physical_object╚living_thing; animate_thing╚organism; being╚person; individual; someone; somebody; mortal; human;
> 
> 
> *Thatcher* [ɵætʃɜ:]*A*_noun_
> *1 *Thatcher, Margaret_Thatcher, Margaret_Hilda_Thatcher, Baroness_Thatcher_of_Kesteven, Iron_Lady
> 
> Category Tree:entity╚object; physical_object╚living_thing; animate_thing╚organism; being╚person; individual; someone; somebody; mortal; human



Which is which?  Are they both clones of Dolly?


----------



## casehi

We, Argentines, call the Falkland Islands "Islas Malvinas"
I remember vaguely that the name could come from Saint Malö (Bretagne).
I'm not sure of the following: Saint Malö's inhabitants who occupied the islands for a while, are called "malouines".  
The French know the islands as Malouines.
All this must be confirmed.
Regards
Casehi


----------



## Benjy

Marc1 said:
			
		

> Zeb, I happen to know personally the diplomat on diuty in Genevra at the time and that has written proof of what I said.
> Do you have grounds to dismiss my theory?
> Of you just don't like it? Friend with Mrs MT perhaps?



maybe its just that your theory makes no sense? how could the opposing sides both benefit? if one won the other lost.. a war can't prop up the ailing careers of the leaders of BOTH sides.. that makes absolutely no sense to me. and how in the world did the pope benefit? EH? could you explain how this theory works? in simple terms for stupid people like me?


----------



## Dandee

Benjy said:
			
		

> maybe its just that your theory makes no sense? how could the opposing sides both benefit? if one won the other lost.. a war can't prop up the ailing careers of the leaders of BOTH sides.. that makes absolutely no sense to me. and how in the world did the pope benefit? EH? could you explain how this theory works? in simple terms for stupid people like me?


 

Alguna vez Oscar Wilde dijo algo parecido:

*"En el mundo real de los hechos ni el justo es premiado por sus obras ni el injusto es castigado por las suyas. El más fuerte se impone sobre el más débil. Eso es todo."*


 Dandee.


----------



## Benjy

ok.. so after a little dictionary and guess work 

"in the real world the just is not rewarded for his works neither is the injust punished for his. the strong impose themselves on the weak. that is all"

?


----------



## Marc1

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> This is interesting.  One forero (#1) has made a rather impressive claim, without giving proof. Another forero (#2) questions the claim.  #1 then says he has a friend who has proof, but still doesn't provide proof to #2, rather the assertion that proof exists.



Ha ha, good point Cuchu, yet I hope you don't expect me to scan and post the particular document I am talking about since such has been burning the conscience of my friend for the last twenty odd years and he is not ready to make it public. 
My request to disproof what I did not prove but stated, is merely to establish why the person is saying "rubbish". Perhaps he knows something I do not?  By the way I find it rather funny how so many people have strong opinions on a war they know so little about. So far the only person providing some useful historical data was you. 

Does anyone know where the Falklands are?
 Could locate them in a map? 
Knows who inhabits them? 
Any idea of climate soil and resources? 
How is the sea around them? 
Been there for a holiday?


----------



## Benjy

Marc1 said:
			
		

> Ha ha, good point Cuchu, yet I hope you don't expect me to scan and post the particular document I am talking about since such has been burning the conscience of my friend for the last twenty odd years and he is not ready to make it public.
> My request to disproof what I did not prove but stated, is merely to establish why the person is saying "rubbish". Perhaps he knows something I do not?  By the way I find it rather funny how so many people have strong opinions on a war they know so little about. So far the only person providing some useful historical data was you.
> 
> Does anyone know where the Falklands are?
> Could locate them in a map?
> Knows who inhabits them?
> Any idea of climate soil and resources?
> How is the sea around them?
> Been there for a holiday?




yes to all of those apart from the last one and the resources. does that mean you will answer my question now?


----------



## cuchuflete

Marc1 said:
			
		

> Ha ha, good point Cuchu, yet I hope you don't expect me to scan and post the particular document I am talking about since such has been burning the conscience of my friend for the last twenty odd years and he is not ready to make it public.



Thanks Marc...No, I don't expect you to publish a document which might get a friend to join the desaparecidos, but I trust you can understand why people may have trouble accepting the assertion of Papel involvement without some tangible proof.

I have already said that I think that protestations of 'love' for those barren rocks by either Brits or Argentines are pure hogwash.  You helped make that point rather nicely with your rhetorical questions.

Nearly 1000 people died in that stupid, senseless war.  With or without the involvement of any third parties...that is grounds to condemn all those who pursued it from their high government posts.

The thugs who began it were the same monsters who kidnapped and killed thousands of Argentine civilians.  What amazes and confuses me is that the good people of Argentina, who suffered under, and now condemn Videla, Galtieri, and their cohorts, are usually in favor of democracy, self determination, and against collonialism.  Yet many of these same people would have substituted what is called--perhaps rightly--British colonialism for a flavor with a Blue and White banner.

The facts make only one thing clear: legal ownership of these islands can be argued well from more than one perspective.

When the war was begun, there were official diplomatic talks under way between the two governments in question, specifically to seek a peaceful resolution.  

If anyone benefitted from that war, it was the French munitions manufacturers, who sold more Exocet missiles.  Argentina, Britain, and the Islanders all lost.

The kelp and krill were, and remain, indifferent.

saludos,
Cuchu


----------



## Marc1

Benjy said:
			
		

> yes to all of those apart from the last one and the resources. does that mean you will answer my question now?



Benjy aged 22.
You were born after the war was over, I have scars and kids that are older than you. 
Let it rest, learn from the past and look at the future. Britain is a wonderful place. I suggest to look at real estate around Manchester. Good returns last year and still strong this year.


----------



## cuchuflete

Benjy,

Here's a possible interpretation of how it might have worked for all three parties:

Galtieri invades. Thatcher dispatches large naval force, marines, etc, to contest Galtieri's action.  Both win support of their respective herds of unthinking sheep for being 'strong'.  The Pope, or any third party, intervenes to prevent more combat, and restore the status quo ante...which included peaceful diplomacy between the two parties.

All three look like heroes.

Personally, I don't buy this theory at all, but it is plausible.  I would only be persuaded if given proof, and that, for obvious reasons, is not available.  So we either 'buy' the theory or choose not to.

Shall we give this one a rest now?  Why don't you and Marc and I join Zeb by the pool, and hatch a plot against something or other...

Tchau,
Qxu


----------



## Benjy

Marc1 said:
			
		

> Benjy aged 22.
> You were born after the war was over, I have scars and kids that are older than you.
> Let it rest, learn from the past and look at the future. Britain is a wonderful place. I suggest to look at real estate around Manchester. Good returns last year and still strong this year.



oh for goodness sake. no offence mate, you're a smart guy but that is weak. i mean real weak. i'm interested in what you have to say, thats why i asked the question. what a let down.

edit: cuchu.. thats all i was looking for, thanks  food for thought.


----------



## cuchuflete

Un forero ha dicho: 





> su nombre real es islas Malvinas *porque así las llamamos* en Argentina nosotros, los dueños de todo derecho legítimo sobre ellas.


Lo ha dicho sin compartir con nosotros la base "de todo derecho legítimo".

Otro forero ha dicho:  





> Strong statements and no arguments... that's the british way, yeap...


 también sin establecer una base lógica para tal declaración. 

Estas declaraciones no van a convencer a nadie.

Claro que hay al menos dos perspectivas.  Nos hace falta entender las dos.  Pero por favor...con datos y no con emociones.


----------



## Like an Angel

Falklands = Islas Malvinas, son dos nombres distintos, no es uno traducción del otro, como por ej.: Firenze=Florencia

¿De quién son? de la madre naturaleza supongo, si algún día el ser humano se extingue -¡por Dios! que puede ser el predador más voraz si así lo desea-, todo quedaría en manos de ella, y seguramente tendría una existencia plena y llena de paz. He tenido la grandiosa oportunidad de mailear con un ex-combatiente inglés y más allá de que, no sé si decir ganaron, está humanamente destruído, porque eso es lo único que una guerra puede dejar, *destrucción*. Por supuesto que no lo sufren quienes bajan el dedo dando el ok para que comience la _función_, lo de ellos es sólo una búsqueda de poder -económico, o poder por el poder mismo- pero si se dieran cuenta del daño que causan, si fueran conscientes de que con la vida humana -como con cualquier vida- no se puede jugar, seguramente se sentarían y lo pensarían dos veces. Tristemente no creo que haya ganadores, y no lo digo porque sea nativa y viva en el país *perdedor*, por así decirlo, sino porque no le veo sentido a la guerra. Sinceramente no puedo entender por qué la NASA y tantos otros están tan interesados en hacer contactos del tercer tipo, si la mayoría de ellos no se puede llevar bien ni siquiera con su vecino, aunque claro está que lo que están buscando es adónde mudarse cuando hayan acabado con este hermoso planeta. Aaaaaaaaaay es totalemente utópico, pero que lindo sería si no fueramos Ingleses, Italianos, Franceses, Rusos, Chinos, Españoles, Porugueses, etc., etc., etc. y fueramos sólo *terrícolas*. Perdón por escribir lo que escribí en Castellano, es mi idioma y por el momento el único con el que creo expresarme mejor.-

¡Saludos! aunque después de un post tan _hippie_ debería decir paz/peace


----------



## cuchuflete

Gracias Compatriota Terrícola,

Estamos de acuerdo en todo lo que has dicho.

Perdón por mi castellano deforme,

Cuchu


----------



## sergio11

Three things:

First, regarding the aborigins in the islands, it is not reasonable to think that there were any at the time.  There is no way that primitive aborigins could have survived in the islands without mainland connections. So I think the islands were deserted until the European powers built settlements.

Second, regarding the Pope, this is the first time I hear about any involvement of his in all these years.   There were other heads of state that were intimately involved with the conflict, and with whom both Galtieri and Thatcher were in continuous talks throughout the whole war, probably more than with their own forces, but I had not heard of the Pope.  It is not that I want to defend him; it is just that I did not hear about it.

Third, history is not always written with objectivity.  We have no idea of what really happened.  Remember that there is more to it than meets the eye.  For example, we have not been able to find in any English books any records, comments or mentions of the two English invasions of Buenos Aires in 1806 and 1807.  A few years later, in 1833, the English invaded the Malvinas and kept it until now, except for the brief period between April 2 and June 15 of 1982. Who had rights to them and who did not?  Who knows?  Why did the Brits invade Buenos Aires in 1806 and 1807?  Nobody knows either.  Even more puzzling, why did they do it with such inadequate forces that they were easily repelled within few days by the civilians in one occasion and by small military forces the other time?  

I guess these are mysteries we will never know.  To keep fighting about it among ourselves for wrongs that our governments did, with which none of us agreed in the first place, seems inane.  We are word-and-language foreros, not military bureaucrats or nationalistic fanatics.  We will not be able to solve the issue now.  I can debate with more passion the meaning, usage or derivation of a word than the rights of ownership of these islands.


----------



## Like an Angel

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Perdón por mi castellano deforme,
> 
> Cuchu


 
Por nada Cuchuflex -perdón por la confianza, los terrícolas que habitamos una zona de este bendito planeta llamada Argentina somos así  -, y ojalá mi Inglés fuera tan *deforme* como su Castellano


----------



## DDT

Marc1 said:
			
		

> Benjy aged 22.
> You were born after the war was over, I have scars and kids that are older than you.
> Let it rest, learn from the past and look at the future. Britain is a wonderful place. I suggest to look at real estate around Manchester. Good returns last year and still strong this year.



So that you took part in that war?   

DDT


----------



## Artrella

Marc1 said:
			
		

> Benjy aged 22.
> You were born after the war was over, I have scars and kids that are older than you.
> Let it rest, learn from the past and look at the future. Britain is a wonderful place. I suggest to look at real estate around Manchester. Good returns last year and still strong this year.




Me too, some of my best friends are there now... and I cannot even visit them in their graves... we cannot go there if we are not close relatives...
It's so sad to have this reminder here....


----------



## cuchuflete

Neru said:
			
		

> Wahey, another natural resources conspiracy theory.



I don't know about conspiracy, but there does appear to be, especially in light of current crude prices, the possibility of commercial exploitation of both petroleum and gas *proven reserves.*  Please research it a little before dismissing it out of hand.  Thanks.

Cuchu


----------



## mjscott

Cuchuflete-
Could you prove a little clearer the *proven reserve--*
--a little more proof than a map of the Falkland Islands with a blue circle drawn north of them?
Thanks,


----------



## Marc1

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> I don't know about conspiracy, but there does appear to be, especially in light of current crude prices, the possibility of commercial exploitation of both petroleum and gas *proven reserves.*  Please research it a little before dismissing it out of hand.  Thanks.



http://www.falklands-oil.com/

As for your summation of my so called theory, you have outlined exactly what happened. If you need confirmation just research the time and the course the british navy took to reach the islands. I'm not sure how it is called in naval terms but I call it zig-zag course.  I am glad that the islands stayed in British hands, for the inhabitants sake. The exploation of potential mineral and oil resources will become a reality some time in the future but will prove to be much less than the value of 1000 kids lives. The sinking of the Belgrano ordered by MT personaly knowing it was a carrier of troops only lighlty armed and totaly out of the conflict zone and heading towards port, is the single most despicable murderous act in modern history.
Milosevich is a boy scout in comparison.


----------



## cuchuflete

mjscott said:
			
		

> Cuchuflete-
> Could you prove a little clearer the *proven reserve--*
> --a little more proof than a map of the Falkland Islands with a blue circle drawn north of them?
> Thanks,



Sure I could...type petroleum and Falklands into a search engine, and read some of the 500 sources listed. The map I copied is from a U.S. Geological Survey site, which, with many others, describes significant oil and gas findings by...no kidding here...Desire Petroleum. I actually put the map here to show where the Islands are. A picture with lines certainly does not address proven reserves of anything but maps!

The oil possibilities were discussed in the Buenos Aires press when I was working in Argentina in 1977. This is rather old news. The difference is that the cost of extraction made it uneconomical to exploit the fields until very recently.

I'm not ducking your question...it's just not something I need to prove here, as the sources are so easily available to anyone who wants to follow up. This is neither news, nor secret. It's very public info.

Still, I'm glad you asked.

thanks,
Cuchu


----------



## mjscott

Thanks to you, Cuchuflete. Your posts in threads are always interesting to follow because you're not afraid to stick your hands in a cage and pull out a bobcat. (must be that big-bucks moderator income....)


----------



## sergio11

My take about this is as follows:

If someone comes with a gun and wants to kill my children if I don't give them a piece of real estate that I own, I will give them the property and keep my children. 

So, if I will not sacrifice my children for a piece of my own land, why would I sacrifice them for someone else's real estate?


----------



## mjscott

Sergio,
I know there's something really profound in what you are saying, but could you be a bit more shallow--for the sake of those of us who have to get up at 5:00 a.m.? (I'm not getting it, but it is late.)

....or is the answer to your question maybe I'd sacrifice them, oh, for imperialism?


----------



## sergio11

mjscott said:
			
		

> Sergio,
> I know there's something really profound in what you are saying, but could you be a bit more shallow--for the sake of those of us who have to get up at 5:00 a.m.? (I'm not getting it, but it is late.)
> 
> ....or is the answer to your question maybe I'd sacrifice them, oh, for imperialism?


 
I am saying, simply, that I would not have started that war that cost so many lives for a piece of land where we did not have any citizens.   Only if there were Argentinians in the islands being oppressed, tortured or mistreated in any way would I have considered taking arms in order to defend them.  But a tiny piece of barren land where we never had any settlements for almost 150 years is not worth the lives of a thousand young people.


----------



## Marc1

sergio11 said:
			
		

> My take about this is as follows:
> 
> If someone comes with a gun and wants to kill my children if I don't give them a piece of real estate that I own, I will give them the property and keep my children.
> 
> So, if I will not sacrifice my children for a piece of my own land, why would I sacrifice them for someone else's real estate?



Sergio, you are using logic the wrong way around.
Head of state do not consider soldiers their children nor get to war to claim land. War is an instrument to increase power, power is not in land anymore, but in alliances and business.

I will reveal another small piece of information regarding the war.

In 1983 I started a manufacturing operation and needed a small shed for the dirtier part of the process. I found the ideal little place and begun work.
During the installation process some things caught my eye. The shed had little signs of having been used for any type of industry and the front wall had a series of holes drilled diagonally through the wall in a way that they all pointed at the front gate some 20 meters away. The back wall to the neighboring property had a door size opening badly bricked up.

It did not take long to find out who the previous tenant had been. They where the subcontractors who had landed the job of demolishing the wailing factory in the Sandwich island who then erected an Argentinean flag on the island in full view of an English frigate who then took them prisoners and that triggered the incident that allegedly started the war.

Who were this people? According to the neighbors they had some 20 employees and did nothing for most of the year yet they all drove new cars and used military fatigues in stead of metal workers overalls. From time to time they would build a gate or a metal fence just to keep busy. They built loopholes and escape back door in the shed, in true military fashion. This were the "sleepers" who were waiting for the assignment designed to trigger the war. A war by design, to increase power to 3 people.


----------



## cuchuflete

mjscott said:
			
		

> Thanks to you, Cuchuflete. Your posts in threads are always interesting to follow because you're not afraid to stick your hands in a cage and pull out a bobcat. (must be that big-bucks moderator income....)



Hola MJ,

I have many scars to prove that bobcats have teeth and claws, and that one never really knows what's in the cage!  I think we have had some lively and interesting discussions in this forum, and so long as they are based on ideas, and not contests to see who can bellow loudest, it's great to learn from one another.

By the way, after reading your last post, I went back to the search engine, and found over 8000 hits for petroleum + Falklands {how many more might I have found if I'd typed petroleo + Malvinas?} and to me it clearly appears that there are hydrocarbons in the area, but commercial exploitation is far from certain.  In short, the oil and gas remain a 'maybe'
at this point.  Just the sort of thing nations fight over.

saludos,
Cuchu


----------



## sergio11

Marc1 said:
			
		

> Sergio, you are using logic the wrong way around.
> Head of state do not consider soldiers their children nor get to war to claim land. War is an instrument to increase power, power is not in land anymore, but in alliances and business.
> 
> ...In 1983 I started a manufacturing operation and needed a small shed for the dirtier part of the process. I found the ideal little place and begun work...


 
You are right, my logic would never fly in a war planning committee (or whatever they are called--you can plainly see this is not my forte 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




, do I have to tell any further?) 

Your little narrative sounds as if you were conducting that manufacturing operation on the islands, is that the case? Wow! If so, you are the first person I "know" who has actually been there. This adds a new dimension to your comments, and, of course, makes our lives more interesting: to actually know someone who has been there! (even if it is only through the Internet).


----------



## alc112

¿A qué llegó este hilo?
¿A quién le pertenecen las islas o qué?
No tengo ganas de leer tanto
¿POr qué no ponen una encuesta y listo?
Saludos


----------



## cuchuflete

alc112 said:
			
		

> ¿A qué llegó este hilo?
> ¿A quién le pertenecen las islas o qué?
> No tengo ganas de leer tanto
> ¿POr qué no ponen una encuesta y listo?
> Saludos



Hola ALC,

Si Chaval, es aburrido y peligroso leer tanto, pero tiene sus beneficios también.  Se puede aprender a apreciar lo que nos ha dicho H.L. Mencken:

Para cada pregunta difícil y controvertida, hay una sola solución sencilla y corta....¡y está equivocada!

La comunidad que habita las islas tiene una respuesta.  Los gobiernos tienen otras.  La historia nos ofrece varias posibilidades.

Lo importante es aprender y pensar, en vez de buscar algo nítido y fácil.

Una encuesta sería interesante: Yo propongo una encuesta de personas que han sufrido bajo Videla y Galtieri, y las Madres de la Plaza de Mayo, y los padres de jóvenes británicos y argentinos que fueron matados cuando la guerra.

saludos,
Cuchu

PD- anda a ver el enlace que he puesto antes...para ver un poco de historia, según un caballero argentino.


----------



## alc112

Gracias cuchu
cual link?
¿en qué post está?
Muchas gracias


----------



## cuchuflete

alc112 said:
			
		

> Gracias cuchu
> cual link?
> ¿en qué post está?
> Muchas gracias



Del post #32...

http://www.yendor.com/vanished/falklands-war.html


saludos ALC,
Cuchu


----------



## Marc1

sergio11 said:
			
		

> You are right, my logic would never fly in a war planning committee (or whatever they are called--you can plainly see this is not my forte
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , do I have to tell any further?)
> 
> Your little narrative sounds as if you were conducting that manufacturing operation on the islands, is that the case? Wow! If so, you are the first person I "know" who has actually been there. This adds a new dimension to your comments, and, of course, makes our lives more interesting: to actually know someone who has been there! (even if it is only through the Internet).


Please read again. I happened to own a factory that rented the property previously occupied by a team of paramilitary who had the task of creating an incident that would trigger the war.

PS

Oops, I see what you mean...no it was not over there it was in Buenos Aires.


----------



## cuchuflete

alc112 said:
			
		

> ¿A qué llegó este hilo?



I think we have learned much....

1. We can learn from one another;
2.we can disagree without insults
3. We can be persistent, as we should, with our questions
4. There is a huge difference between saying, "I am right because what I believe is true." and actually demonstrating that your position is corrrect.
5. Often good, fact-based arguments can support more than one logical outcome.
6. Not everything they taught us in school is the truth: even the teachers may have been told lies, and their textbooks may have been inaccurate!
We need to be critical thinkers.
7. Sometimes what our governments do is evil.  Don't confuse a government with the essence of what your country is all about!

Thanks for your contributions.

Cuchu


----------



## El Guasio

Blackleaf said:
			
		

> What does it matter how close they are to Argentina?  Brazil is close to Argentina so, according to you, Brazil should belong to Argentina.
> 
> The Falklands rightfully belong to Britain as they were owned by Britain before Argentina even existed.



The Falklands War is a good example of loosing a war due to lack of good military intelligence.  (Intelligence here meaning gathering and analisys of military information).   On the other hand the purpose of that war was to entertain argentinians from the real problems of the country and *not* the reinvindication of national rights.  By the way I think "Las Malvinas" belonged to Argentina and were taken from Argentina by the Royal Navy during the 19th century after independence proclamation.

Anyway this discussion would be more relevant in www.military.com than here.  You will always be welcome there.


----------



## maxiogee

The Falklands War was, surely, lost because America was helping Britain with intelligence? And because the Americans "authorised" the British to take military action in the South Atlantic. They could easily have said no.


----------



## El Guasio

The Royal Nave was planning on shifting all their efforts and funds away from far reaching operations.  If Argentinian Junta just waited 5 more years Britain wouldn't be able to fight back the invasion.  On the other hand the Chilean dictator Pinochet also was helping the British, the Argentinian Armed Forces suspected some Chilenian involvement, but never knew the full extent of it.  The Argentinian government and armed forces was ill prepared for that war, and the USA made sure of telling the British.

Just 5 more years and it would be a piece of cake.


----------



## Blackleaf

Neru said:
			
		

> Bueno, supongo que todo depende del color del cristal con que se mire la realidad...
> 
> No es que me importe mucho este tema, la verdad, pero creo que siempre es preferible que la gente pueda ver también la otra cara de la moneda.
> 
> Por eso, aquí pongo otra *versión* de la historia:
> 
> "Although first sighted by an English navigator in *1592*, the first landing (*English*) did not occur until almost a century later in 1690, and the first settlement (*French*) was not established until 1764. The colony was turned over to *Spain* two years later and the islands have since been the subject of a territorial dispute, first between *Britain* and Spain, then between Britain and *Argentina*. The UK asserted its claim to the islands by establishing a naval garrison there in *1833*. Argentina *invaded* the islands on 2 April 1982. The British *responded* with an expeditionary force that landed seven weeks later and after fierce fighting forced Argentine surrender on 14 June 1982."
> 
> Saludos.


 
The British may not have been the first to land there, but they belonged to Britain before a group of South American states unified to form Argentina. How can the Argies say that the Falkands should belong to them when they were British before Argentina was even born?

According to international law, they are British and Britain had the support of the UN in 1982 when it defended the Falklands from a nation which was run by a tyrranical dictator.


----------



## Blackleaf

Neru said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, yes.  Winning a phoney war is a great way to boost your election campaign.


 
Why do you think General Galtieri, leader of Argentina in 1982 and who was a dictator worse than Saddam Hussein, illegally invaded the Falklands? Because he was unpopular amongst his people, which was quite natural when you consider that he had killed thousands of his countrymen and even to this day arounf 30,000 of their bodies have not been found. He thought that if he invaded the Falklands it would make him more popular with his people.

Unfortunately, that meant having to go to war with Britain, which is not a good thing to do even when it has a weakened military has it had in 1982. The British gave him a couple of black eyes and a bloody nose and he was eventually more unpopular against his people than ever. That led to his downfall.

In Britain, meanwhile, around three-quarters of the people supported the War and Thatcher was immensely popular. She won the general Election in 1983.


----------



## Blackleaf

Marc1 said:
			
		

> The "Malvinas" are rich in Krill and the English want it for themselves


 
So what do the Argentinians want the islands for if it isn't their natural resources?

The Falklands will NEVER belong to Argentina.  Why?  Because the islanders will either vote to be British, as they have done on numerous occasions, or they will vote to become an independent nation, neither British or Argentinian.  No matter how much the Argies moan and groan, they'll never become Argentinian.


----------



## Blackleaf

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> If anyone benefitted from that war, it was the French munitions manufacturers, who sold more Exocet missiles.
> 
> saludos,
> Cuchu


 
Yeah.  They sold Exocets to a deranged dictator who was worse than Saddam that the Argies eventually used on France's EU "allies".

But the French doing that sort of thing doesn't surprise me.


----------



## Blackleaf

Marc1 said:
			
		

> http://www.falklands-oil.com/
> 
> The sinking of the Belgrano ordered by MT personaly knowing it was a carrier of troops only lighlty armed and totaly out of the conflict zone and heading towards port, is the single most despicable murderous act in modern history.
> Milosevich is a boy scout in comparison.


 
I would say Nazi atrocities and the Holocaust were far worse than the sinking of an enemy ship.

Slobodan Milosevic killed 230,000 people.

Whereas the sinking of the Belgrano resulted in the loss of 230 lives.  So how was the Milosevich a "boy scout" in comparison?


----------



## Blackleaf

El Guasio said:
			
		

> Just 5 more years and it would be a piece of cake.


 
And what would have happened to those Falkland Islanders who were living in a democracy?  They would have all of a sudden become under the rule of a country that was a brutal military dictatorship.  The thousands of Falklands Islanders would probably have been murdered.  That what probably would have happened in Argentina won the war.

As usual, Britain was fighting for democracy and freedom against a country that would have made a tiny nation that was previously a democracy nothing more than a dictatorship.

But the Spanish, Italians and French have been used to living in dictatorships over the years - Franco, Musslini, the Vichy - so they would definitely have been happy if Argentina won.


----------



## Like an Angel

Blackleaf said:
			
		

> I would say Nazi atrocities and the Holocaust were far worse than the sinking of an enemy ship.
> 
> Slobodan Milosevic killed 230,000 people.
> 
> Whereas the sinking of the Belgrano resulted in the loss of 230 lives. So how was the Milosevich a "boy scout" in comparison?


 
Would you think the same if your son/daugther/mother/father/any very beloved one, would have been one of of the 230 lives that run the Belgrano, instead of one of the 230.000 killed by Slobodan Milosevic? I don't think so. Be careful my friend, when it comes to kill, it doesn't matter the number.


----------



## maxiogee

Like an Angel said:
			
		

> Would you think the same if your son/daugther/mother/father/any very beloved one, would have been one of of the 230 lives that run the Belgrano, instead of one of the 230.000 killed by Slobodan Milosevic? I don't think so. Be careful my friend, when it comes to kill, it doesn't matter the number.



As an pacifist and an Irishman who has no great love of either Margaret Thatcher or militarism, I think anyone who tries to compare Margaret Thatcher with Milosevic or Nazis is stretching my credulity beyond its breaking point.

Amounts do matter, and not just amounts, but purpose and motive and justification matter. All deaths are to be condemned and those who cause them to be reviled, but those on board the Belgrano chose to be there. They were military personnel.


----------



## Everness

maxiogee said:
			
		

> As an pacifist and an Irishman who has no great love of either Margaret Thatcher or militarism, I think anyone who tries to compare Margaret Thatcher with Milosevic or Nazis is stretching my credulity beyond its breaking point.
> 
> Amounts do matter, and not just amounts, but purpose and motive and justification matter. All deaths are to be condemned and those who cause them to be reviled, but those on board the Belgrano chose to be there. They were military personnel.



323 lives were lost, mostly kids. At the time of the attack the ship was outside the exclusion zone and sailing away from the conflict zone. 

The following information is very revealing:

"Commander Christopher Wreford-Brown, commanding officer of HMS Conqueror, informed the Admiralty four hours before his attack that the Argentine cruiser had changed course, but this information was not passed to the MoD or Rear-Admiral John "Sandy" Woodward (commander of the RN task force)."

It's even more interesting how the paragraph ends, "Thus it appears that neither Margaret Thatcher nor the Cabinet were aware of the Belgrano's change of course before the cruiser was sunk."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War#Sinking_of_the_Belgrano

Baloney! The Brits had the information about Belgrano's change of course *4 (four) *hours before it was sunk. Maggie the Butcher will always have 323 extra reasons to feel like sh*t when she wakes up in the morning and looks at herself in the mirror. She desperately needed this to survive politically back home. But we shouldn't worry about her. Politicians are extremely skillful when it comes to living with themselves.


----------



## maxiogee

Why do you quote me to introduce your post?
I have stated that I am a pacifist, that I am an Irish person and that I do not like militarism or Margaret Thatcher.

She did not start the war —> but Yes, she used it when it was presented to her. 
That is what politicians do, they use certain events to hide others. 
Are the politicians where you are any different? 
Mine aren't. 
I couldn't believe the kerfuffle when a British aide sent, on 9/11, a memo saying that it "would be a good day to bury bad news" - she was only silly to have written it down! What she suggested would probably have been going through more minds than hers, and not just in England! It is how they think about any event —> "How can I best turn this to my advantage?"

I'm sure it is merely an oversight on your part, but I note that you make no mention of the British lives lost as a result of the Argentinian adverture involving invading territory that didn't belong to them! 
If Galtieri had not initiated the invasion of the Islands the Belgrano wouldn't have been endangered. When you commit your military to a war you lose control of them.


----------



## Like an Angel

maxiogee said:
			
		

> ... but those on board the Belgrano chose to be there.


 
I won't be that sure, there were 18 years old _kids_ in there, many of them never had the chance to learn how to use a gun... it was the brutal decision of a brutal man what made them get into that ship. May be the ship's Captain and some other officers, but most of the crew were poor souls, poor victims.


----------



## maxiogee

Like an Angel said:
			
		

> I won't be that sure, there were 18 years old _kids_ in there, many of them never had the chance to learn how to use a gun... it was the brutal decision of a brutal man what made them get into that ship. May be the ship's Captain and some other officers, but most of the crew were poor souls, poor victims.



So were they "only obeying orders" when they went to fight over islands to which they had no rightful claim?


----------



## Like an Angel

maxiogee said:
			
		

> So were they "only obeying orders" when they went to fight over islands to which they had no rightful claim?


 
Yes, indeed... most of them.


----------



## Like an Angel

A short time ago I saw a documentary that brings tears to my eyes even now. Those guys were sent not just to a war, they were sent to a place they didn't have a clue what means... their parents sent them chocolates, letters, cigars, etc., they just received the letters, no food... they lived suffering. Some of them told stories about many people from Faukland helping them to buy food, they gave the Fauklanders (is it right?) money, in return they have food, the ticket and the change, what amazed some of those young guys... there was days when the officers gave just a cookie for 10 men. And many more things that I don't know, for sure.


----------



## Outsider

Blackleaf said:
			
		

> As usual, Britain was fighting for democracy and freedom against a country that would have made a tiny nation that was previously a democracy nothing more than a dictatorship.
> 
> But the Spanish, Italians and French have been used to living in dictatorships over the years - Franco, Musslini, the Vichy - so they would definitely have been happy if Argentina won.


That is completely removed from reality, especially the bizarre bit about the French being "used to" living in dictatorships.


----------



## Everness

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Why do you quote me to introduce your post?
> I have stated that I am a pacifist, that I am an Irish person and that I do not like militarism or Margaret Thatcher.



Because of your words:



			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> All deaths are to be condemned and those who cause them to be reviled, but those on board the Belgrano chose to be there. They were military personnel.



Again, many of these kids didn't choose to be there. They were drafted, like most Argentine Malvinas combatants. The contrast couldn't be more striking: a highly professional British military that gangs up with the United States to fight an ill-prepared military force made up mostly by young and unexperienced draftees.


----------



## groggy

Kids? Gangs up?  
Are we talking about a school playground fight or a war initiated by an armed invasion under the command of a military dictatorship?
The fact that the Argentine soldiers were drafted and ill-prepared for combat was not really the fault of the British or the Americans (or maybe they should have taken it into consideration and given the Argentine army a head start?)


----------



## Everness

groggy said:
			
		

> Kids? Gangs up?
> Are we talking about a school playground fight or a war initiated by an armed invasion under the command of a military dictatorship?
> The fact that the Argentine soldiers were drafted and ill-prepared for combat was not really the fault of the British or the Americans (or maybe they should have taken it into consideration and given the Argentine army a head start?)



C'mon! This purpose of this conversation isn't to decide if British legendary pirates are better than Argentine petty dictators. My point is that sinking the Belgrano was just overkill.


----------



## groggy

Everness said:
			
		

> C'mon! This purpose of this conversation isn't to decide if British legendary pirates are better than Argentine petty dictators. My point is that sinking the Belgrano was just overkill.


Well, I agree on that... and I also hate Margaret Thatcher (just thought I'd throw that in).


----------



## aleCcowaN

What do you all expect to state here? The fact you have an opinion? All this makes clear anything? Changes the past? Taylor the future?


----------



## Everness

aleCcowaN said:
			
		

> What do you all expect to state here? The fact you have an opinion? All this makes clear anything? Changes the past? Taylor the future?



It doesn't change the past or the future. It just shows that violence is the most effective way of exercising influence over others.


----------



## maxiogee

Everness said:
			
		

> It doesn't change the past or the future. It just shows that violence is the most effective way of exercising influence over others.



It shows exactly the opposite - that violence doesn't achieve your ends.
The Argentinians tried violence to 'win' the islands for themselves and it didn't work!

Conscripts can refuse to fight. "I was only obeying orders" is not a legitimate reason to do illegal acts.

Even volunteers to an army can refuse to fight. British soldiers have refused service in Iraq. This is a major decision and it entails trouble for the person, but they have seen it as personally a better decision than obeying orders.


----------



## Everness

maxiogee said:
			
		

> It shows exactly the opposite - that violence doesn't achieve your ends.
> The Argentinians tried violence to 'win' the islands for themselves and it didn't work!



I wasn't talking about Argentina. I was talking about Britain.


----------



## maxiogee

Everness said:
			
		

> I wasn't talking about Argentina. I was talking about Britain.


I know you weren't - but that doesn't invalidate my point.
Argentina tried to achieve something by force of arms, and were countered by - surprise, surprise - force of arms!

Over whom do you claim that Britain was "exercising control" by force of arms?
Surely not the Falkland Islanders who asked Britain to come to their aid, and surely not the Argentianian forces on the islands who had about seven weeks notice that the British were coming. They could have left peacefully at any time before the British force arrived — or, had they the wherewithal, they could have reinforced their positions and their troops and prepared for a war they knew the British were prepared for, and which they knew the British were determined to win.
Why did they stay there?


----------



## se16teddy

To go back to the original question, which was about the name 'Malvinas': yes, many people call these islands 'Malvinas' in honour of early settlers of the islands who were 'malouins', i.e. they were from St Malo in Brittany. The city of St Malo was in turn named after a saint born in Wales. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint-Malo. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Malo_%28saint%29

It has been supposed in this thread that Britain's interest in the islands is economic, but I suspect that the importance of the islands is at least as much that they are located close to sea passages between the Atlantic and Pacific, and are therefore potentially of strategic importance.


----------



## Everness

maxiogee said:
			
		

> I know you weren't - but that doesn't invalidate my point.
> Argentina tried to achieve something by force of arms, and were countered by - surprise, surprise - force of arms!



Ok Tony (are you sure that your last name isn't Blair?), I'd like to expose your faulty logic with some objective historical facts. 

*First fact:* It's true that the Malvinas Islands have had a rather complex history since their discovery. At least 4 countries have claimed possession of the islands: France, Spain, Britain and Argentina.  

*Second fact:* "The Spanish government's claim was continued by *Argentina *after the latter's independence in 1816 and the independence war in 1817, until 1833."

*Third fact:* What happened in 1833, my dear Tony? "*The United Kingdom took by force control of the islands,* following the destruction of the Argentine settlement at Puerto Soledad by the American sloop USS Lexington (December 28, 1831). 

So Tony, which country successfully achieved something by force of Arms in the first place? I rest my case.

By the way, all quotes come from highly unreliable Wikipedia. But who really cares? As the greatest general of all times once said: "History is a myth that men agree to believe." -Napoleon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands#History


----------



## maxiogee

Everness said:
			
		

> Ok Tony (are you sure that your last name isn't Blair?), I'd like to expose your faulty logic with some objective historical facts.
> 
> *Third fact:* What happened in 1833, my dear Tony? "*The United Kingdom took by force control of the islands,* following the destruction of the Argentine settlement at Puerto Soledad by the American sloop USS Lexington (December 28, 1831).
> 
> So Tony, which country successfully achieved something by force of Arms in the first place? I rest my case.



So, How many shots were fired in this "took by force"?
Could it be that the taking was a surrender?  

it is said that the Devil can quote scripture to his purpose, so I'll continue playing Devil's Advocate here and quote Wikipedia in return:-


The United Kingdom mounted an invasion of the Falkland Islands on January 2, 1833, 
after the destruction of the Argentinian Puerto Soledad settlement by the American
corvette Lexington (December 28, 1831) in response to the Argentinian governor 
Luis Vernet having seized U.S. fishing boats. This incident served the Foreign Office 
to reassert its sovereignty claim over the islands. The Argentinian 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 November 15, 1832 
his soldiers mutinied and killed him.
Under the command of Captain James Onslow, brig-sloop HMS Clio, previously stationed 
at Rio de Janeiro, reached Port Egmont on December 20, 1832. It was later joined by HMS Thyne.
Onslow arrived at Puerto Soledad on January 2, 1833. Lt. Col. José María Pinedo, 
commander of the Argentinian schooner Sarandí, who had quelled the rebellion and 
was in charge of the settlement, sent an officer to the British ship. He was presented a 
written request to replace the Argentine flag with the British one, and leave the location. 
Pinedo entertained plans for resisting the invasion, but finally desisted because of 
his obvious numerical inferiority and the want of enough nationals among his crew. 
The British forces disembarked at 9 am of January 3 and promptly switched the flags, 
delivering the Argentine one to Pinedo, who left on January 5."

Your ball.


----------



## Everness

maxiogee said:
			
		

> So, How many shots were fired in this "took by force"?
> Could it be that the taking was a surrender?



Tony, if someone  pulls out a 9mm pistol, puts it to your temple, cocks it, and says, "Give me all your money", is he using force even if he doesn't blow your brains to hell?


----------



## maxiogee

If the person pointing the 9mm is pointing it at someone with a tin sword, who stole the money in the first place, then they are reclaiming their property from a thug who is unable to face up to the consequences of his actions, or to make their victim remain their victim.
The 1982 Argentinian invasion appears to be the second time that the thug attempted to rob the same victim, and each time he has been unable to effect the ends he sought - to separate his victim from their property.

It appears quite clear, from the Wikipedia site you quoted earlier, that Britain was there before Spain:
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.

Your ball.


----------



## Everness

maxiogee said:
			
		

> If the person pointing the 9mm is pointing it at someone with a tin sword, who stole the money in the first place, then they are reclaiming their property from a thug who is unable to face up to the consequences of his actions, or to make their victim remain their victim.
> 
> *You introduce yourself as a pacifist. But I think you are more a minimalist than a maximalist when it comes to pacifism. True pacifists abhor and denounce any type of violence. You apparently don't. That's why you denounce with reservations the violent and bloody invasion of Iraq by your country and mine.*
> 
> It appears quite clear, from the Wikipedia site you quoted earlier, that Britain was there before Spain:
> 
> *But who was there first? The French. So why doesn't Britain give the Malvinas  Islands back to their legitimate owners?*
> 
> 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.
> 
> *Ja, ja, ja... Unaware of the French presence! That's how pirates think, act, and then justify the stealing, pillaging, etc.etc.! Let me quote the British captain: "Oh, I saw no French flag. There was one that resembled it but I thought it was a real estate colorful sign that said: Free land. Help yourself."*
> 
> 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.
> 
> *This purchase proves that the Malvinas Islands were legally considered French property and that Britain took possession of the islands disregarding the law (it's also called stealing). It also proves that Argentina has a legitimate claim to these godforsaken islands.
> *
> 
> 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.
> 
> Your ball.


----------



## maxiogee

Everness said:
			
		

> You introduce yourself as a pacifist. But I think you are more a minimalist than a maximalist when it comes to pacifism. True pacifists abhor and denounce any type of violence. You apparently don't. That's why you denounce with reservations the violent and bloody invasion of Iraq by your country and mine.



A) I am Irish - I live in the Republic of Ireland.
B) Ireland has not invaded anyone, ever!
C) I am a maximum pacifist - I denounce the use of all violence, political and personal.
D) With which reservations have I denounced the invasion of Iraq?


----------



## Everness

maxiogee said:
			
		

> A) I am Irish - I live in the Republic of Ireland.
> B) Ireland has not invaded anyone, ever!
> C) I am a maximum pacifist - I denounce the use of all violence, political and personal.
> D) With which reservations have I denounced the invasion of Iraq?



Seriously, I'm sorry for having said that you were British. I've also gotten "feedback" from Welsh and Scotish people when I use that term to describe them. However, you must acknowledge that most Northern Irish Protestants will refer to themselves as being British while Northern Irish Catholics will refer to themselves as Irish. Right?

This is what you said regarding Bush and Blair,



			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> I didn't say that they were or are concerned about the rest of the world. I'm saying that what they did, whilst immoral, and all sorts of other negatives, was within international law.



Even violence within international law is utterly condemned by maximalist pacifists. By the way, Bush and Blair manipulated a resolution of the UN Security Council to move ahead with their plans. Nothing stops violent people. Just take a look at what's happening in the Middle East. All parties are resorting to violence. That region (and the whole world) is lacking hardcore maximalist pacifists.


----------



## maxiogee

Everness said:
			
		

> Seriously, I'm sorry for having said that you were British. I've also gotten "feedback" from Welsh and Scotish people when I use that term to describe them. However, you must acknowledge that most Northern Irish Protestants will refer to themselves as being British while Northern Irish Catholics will refer to themselves as Irish. Right?




What has Northern Ireland to do with this. I am not from Northern Ireland - *I am Irish - from, as I said, the Republic of Ireland* - I have no Englishness about me, nor have I the Britishness which Scots or Welsh have and which Northern Irish people may chose to acknowledge or not - that is nothing to do with me.



> This is what you said regarding Bush and Blair,
> 
> 
> 
> maxiogee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say that they were or are concerned about the rest of the world. I'm saying that what they did, whilst immoral, and all sorts of other negatives, was within international law.
Click to expand...

I know what I said, what I asked you was 
*D) With which reservations have I denounced the invasion of Iraq?*



> Even violence within international law is utterly condemned by maximalist pacifists.


You make my point - it was 'legal' - strictly speaking, as I said. I also called it immoral - I can't actually think of anything less reserved than that, but I also said it was "all sorts of other negatives".

What is a reservation about stating a fact - whilst condemning it?


----------



## Everness

maxiogee said:
			
		

> What is a reservation about stating a fact - whilst condemning it?


It's an unnecessary comment that waters down your condemnation of violence. However, I think you'll need to revisit your perception of legality of this invasion. It wasn't just illegal: it constituted a *war crime*. 

_Since the majority of the United Nations security council members (both permanent and rotating) did not support the attack, it appears that they viewed the attack as invalid under any resolution still in effect in March, 2003. Both Kofi Annan, current Secretary-General of the United Nations, and former Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, as well as several nations, say that the attack violated international law as a war of aggression since it lacked the validity of a U.N. Security Council resolution to authorize military force, and was not an act of defence, and so violated the UN charter, in other words constitutes a war crime. _

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_-_Legitimacy

If the invasion was illegal and constituted a war crime, why didn't the UN do something about it? In a nutshell, *because UN officials and all member countries don't have cojones.* 

_However, none have called for the security council to consider sanctions against the United States or the other nations involved, both because of an effort to restore warmer relationships with the US, and because the attempt would be futile since the US has a veto in the Security Council._

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_-_Legitimacy


----------



## Everness

maxiogee said:
			
		

> What has Northern Ireland to do with this. I am not from Northern Ireland - *I am Irish - from, as I said, the Republic of Ireland* - I have no Englishness about me, nor have I the Britishness which Scots or Welsh have and which Northern Irish people may chose to acknowledge or not - that is nothing to do with me.



I'm glad that I'm not next to you now. You sound kinda p*ssed. I'm sorry but most of the Irish I know are from Northern Ireland and they also call themselves Irish. It's kind of confusing. I hadn't read your info either.


----------



## emma42

I know I am not a Mod, but please, Everness, can you try and use "cordial" and standard English.  It's just not fair on those trying to learn English.


----------



## almostfreebird

emma42 said:
			
		

> I know I am not a Mod, but please, Everness, can you try and use "cordial" and standard English. It's just not fair on those trying to learn English.


 
It's not a matter of fair or unfair.
It's also the important part of learning English.


----------



## maxiogee

Everness said:
			
		

> I'm glad that I'm not next to you now. You sound kinda p*ssed. I'm sorry but most of the Irish I know are from Northern Ireland and they also call themselves Irish. It's kind of confusing. I hadn't read your info either.



*Exasperated* would be more accurate.
How often do you need to be told something before it registers. 
It's not a question of *reading* my info - it's on ever post I make.
You really don't listen. You appear to have a closed mind on my nationality as on other things.
But then, the closed mind has been the sign of the blinkered extremist and the illiberal throughout history!

"Since the majority of the United Nations security council members 
(both permanent and rotating) did not support the attack, it appears that 
they viewed the attack as invalid under any resolution still in effect in March, 2003."

Faulty logic and second guessing. There is no evidence as to what they believed. They could have had other reasons for not supporting the attack.

"Both Kofi Annan, current Secretary-General of the United Nations, and 
former Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, as well as several nations, say that 
the attack violated international law as a war of aggression since it lacked the validity 
of a U.N. Security Council resolution to authorize military force, and was not an act of 
defence, and so violated the UN charter, in other words constitutes a war crime."

a) Is someone's "Saying" enough now? Tony Blair and George Bush, and the leaders of the other countries who went in there would "say" differently?
b) How about seeing someone charge the US and UK with an illegal act? This is the proper response to illegality, isn't it.

You really are dragging this a long way away from my point — That both sides behaved atrociously.
That the use of force is wrong. (Isn't it surprising how the youths who die in these things [and they usually are youths] have probably never voted more than once in their lives, if at all?)

*You castigated me for having expressed 'reservations' 
about Iraq - where do you stand on the Falkland Islands?*


----------



## .   1

Everness said:
			
		

> I'm glad that I'm not next to you now. You sound kinda p*ssed. I'm sorry but most of the Irish I know are from Northern Ireland and they also call themselves Irish. It's kind of confusing. I hadn't read your info either.


Is this correct?
Do people from Northern Ireland refer to themselves as Irish or is there some additional descriptive?

.,,


----------



## Blackleaf

Argentine war veterans facing ban from Falklands celebration
By CHRISTOPHER LEAKE, The Mail on Sunday

15th July 2006

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2006/07/falklands150706_228x157.jpg 
The British retake the Falkands after Argentina invades them.

Argentine veterans face being shut out of British commemorations for the 25th anniversary of the Falklands War next year because of their country's new claims for sovereignty over the islands. 

A senior Government source has told The Mail on Sunday that a ban is being considered in light of Argentina's hard-line approach, which is threatening charter flights to the Falklands, fishing rights and oil exploration. 

*Mod Edit:  Infringement of Rule #16:*


> No web pages or copyrighted or plagiarized content may be inserted into WordReference posts except as indicated below. Minor fair use excerpts from dictionaries such as a definition/translation or two are permitted. Quotes and translations of texts up to 4 sentences are permitted. Links to content elsewhere are acceptable and appropriate, provided such links meet the requirements stated elsewhere in these rules. Always acknowledge the source. All forms of inserted content that do not meet these conditions will be removed without exception.


----------



## Blackleaf

maxiogee said:
			
		

> A) I am Irish - I live in the Republic of Ireland.
> B) Ireland has not invaded anyone, ever!


 
Ireland invaded Scotland in the 6th and 7th Centuries.

And it invaded many countries and helped rule the largest Empire in history when it was a part of the United Kingdom between 1801 and 1922.


----------



## groggy

Everness said:
			
		

> In the meantime, I have a temporary but sensible solution: let's give the Malvinas Islands (aka Falklands) to the penguins, the real and legitimate owners of those godforsaken rocks.


The penguins? Come on, the flightless steamer ducks were there before the penguins, and as such must be the real and legitimate owners of the islands, at least if we forget about the elephant seals.
WTF, let's just fly the Argentine flag there anyway and forget about the "255 British Servicemen (+300 more who later committed suicide) 655 Argentines and three islanders who died because of the "unwarranted aggression and illegal invasion" (words of the UN) led by a brutal military dictator.


----------



## groggy

Everness said:
			
		

> If you watch "The March of the Penguins," I'm sure you'll change your mind.


I've not seen the film but I've read the book.


			
				Everness said:
			
		

> Wars are stupid and any flag, including the British, that flies there will always constitute a serious offense to the different parties and a testament of our collective stupidity.
> 
> 
> We should honor all soldiers that have stupidily died in all wars (no exception) but we shouldn't use their deaths as a means to pursue our political or militaristic goals.


Well, I agree with all that, but I thought this thread was specifically about The Falkland Islands/Las Malvinas and I've still not read anything here that remotely convinces me that the illegal invasion by Argentina in 1982 was in any way justified.

I don't try to justify the invasion of Iraq just because I'm British, and neither do most British people, who are also against it.

Going back to the very beginning of this thread (I've tried to read most of it), the post that probably started this debate contained this gem:

"Las islas Malvinas son Argentinas y están siendo ocupadas desde hace más de un siglo por Inglaterra. Los Ingleses les llaman Falklands, pero su nombre real es islas Malvinas porque así las llamamos en Argentina nosotros, los dueños de todo derecho legítimo sobre ellas".

_"Las Islas Malvinas belong to Argentina and are being occupied by England (sic) since over a century ago. The English (sic) call them "the Falklands", but their real name is "Las Islas Malvinas" because that's how we Argentinians, the real and legitimate owners, call them"._

Hmm, Wikipedia should hire the guy who wrote that to check all their articles for bias and accuracy.


----------



## maxiogee

Everness said:
			
		

> Ok, I'm a closed minded person and a potential terrorist.


Now where do I say "a potential terrorist, or even anything even closely akin to that?
You really must stop this thing you call "projection".
Please do not turn my words around.

However, if you wish to call yourself a potential terrorist, that's your concern and who am I, who doesn't know you as well as you know yourself, to say you are wrong.




> This thread is on the Malvinas Islands (aka Falkland Islands) but I think it's appropriate to discuss the use of force in other places in the world e.g.: invasion of Iraq.


 I don't see how the disputed ownership of islands which I think Britain has no valid claim to (surprising how you never asked me about that!) can compare to an immoral military adventure to achieve (allegedly) a change of regime in a country which none of the adventuring countries have any claim to - legal or otherwise.




> Please check out this website. http://www.robincmiller.com/ir-legal.ht


404 - not found - ah well, I'm a resourceful guy, I found him(?) eventually
Who is he - an independent journalist who trumpets himself on his site with the words "Robin C Miller writes with Integrity, Clarity and Passion on issues of social justice" (well he sure knows how to misuse a capital letter!), but as my snobby aunt used to say "who is he?"
He calls his writings "columns" - which implies that they have appeared in a newspaper or newspapers, but when I did a search for
"Robin C Miller writes for"
"Robin C Miller writes"
"Robin C Miller contributes to"
"Robin C Miller contributes"
"Robin C Miller is published"
and finally the very basic 
"Robin C Miller is a"
… not one of these searches produced one hit.

Why are you so insistent on getting me to agree that the war is illegal - what could be worse than it being immoral? I set no store by the political chicanery of crippled international bodies such as the paper-tiger UN, which  the US has declawed.

You seem to think that I support the UK in its stance on the Falklands. I don't, and I never implied I did.
Equally, you seem to think that I support the invasion of Iraq. I don't, and I never said I did. 




> But again, some people are like me: they don't listen even if hard facts are thrown in their faces.


See above.




> And when they run out of arguments, they use real missiles or word missiles to end the debate. I wonder what Zidane would do in a situation like this?


Some others just sit back and await their conversationalist to hear what has been said - sometimes it takes time.



> What's my stand on the Malvinas (aka Falklands) war?


No, I didn't ask that. I asked what your stand on the Islands was.



> In an ideal world without violence, the Argentine flag should be flying on that territory.


What has "an idea world" to so with this?
In an ideal world the Spanish would never have colonised South America, the Arabs would never have colonised Spain, the … 




> Spain acquired the French colony and the Spanish government's claim was continued by Argentina after the latter's independence


How does Spain's claim pass to Argentina as a result of the independence of the territory of Argentina - did Spain also grant independence to the Malvinas in some way?  




> Bottom line: Violence pays off. This world belongs to the violent


This is where you and I disagree.
Violence achieved nothing for Ireland in its struggle to rid itself of British control. Democratic action in a general election was the key thing to bringing Britain to the negotiation table. Then, when the Irish delegation asked for more than Britain was prepared to give - what happened? Britain's Lloyd George threatened that failure to (immediately) sign the Treaty they were prepared to offer would result in "immediate and terrible war" - this from the leader of a country which was still staggering under the terrible cost in lives and loves of The Great War. They were in no mood for further negotiation.
The Republic of Ireland is a free entity today because people negotiated.

The world may, as you say, belong to the violent — Goodness knows the IRA have tried and failed to convince their opponents of the rightness of their demands by shooting and bombing and have got not an inch further than when they subverted the People's Democracy movement of the late 1960s and launched their most recent campaign of undemocratic, self-justifying murder and mayhem — but the violent always have to watch their backs, and to sleep with a gun under their pillow.

Lauding any violence lauds all violence - I'm no football fan and iknow nothing of this Zidane you mentioned except that he took exception to some words and lost control of himself.
That's sad.
However, if you celebrate militaristic "victories" and/or "glorious failures" then you silently endorse his actions and encourage others to resort to violence.

Adieu - I see no point in continuing this discussion with you. You don't seem to hear me.


----------



## Everness

groggy said:
			
		

> Well, I agree with all that, but I thought this thread was specifically about The Falkland Islands/Las Malvinas and I've still not read anything here that remotely convinces me that the illegal invasion by Argentina in 1982 was in any way justified.
> 
> _ You are correctly stating that Argentina conducted an illegal and unjustified invasion. However, you are choosing and emphasizing one particular illegal and unjustified event over 200 years of history carried out by one of the parties while forgetting the other party. Why don't you condemn Britain *for taking by force control of the islands*, following the destruction of the Argentine settlement at Puerto Soledad by the American sloop USS Lexington (December 28, 1831)? Wasn't the action of the Brits also illegal and unjustified?  Oh, but it happened almost 200 years and the the illegal invasion by Argentina happened 20 years ago. Now I get it! _
> 
> Going back to the very beginning of this thread (I've tried to read most of it), the post that probably started this debate contained this gem:
> 
> "Las islas Malvinas son Argentinas y están siendo ocupadas desde hace más de un siglo por Inglaterra. Los Ingleses les llaman Falklands, pero su nombre real es islas Malvinas porque así las llamamos en Argentina nosotros, los dueños de todo derecho legítimo sobre ellas".
> 
> _"Las Islas Malvinas belong to Argentina and are being occupied by England (sic) since over a century ago. The English (sic) call them "the Falklands", but their real name is "Las Islas Malvinas" because that's how we Argentinians, the real and legitimate owners, call them"._
> 
> Hmm, Wikipedia should hire the guy who wrote that to check all their articles for bias and accuracy.
> 
> Wikipedia is run by those type of guys. I already stated that Wikipedia is perhaps the most unreliable source of information in the planet. However, it's material is easy to find and too many people quote it. Most importantly, you quote their articles and no one contests the source. I love it!


----------



## luis masci

Leaving aside all kind of historic rights (none of us are in condition to assure seriously any of them are indeed true) and getting rid of any passion about it, the real fact is that these islands are geographically placed on Argentinean Sea and just to 350 miles from the continental Argentinean land.
So the fact these islands remain belonging to England will be an eternal supply of controversial over and over and so on, because it’s at least very annoying to have ships and planes from other country come and go in our own space.


-----------------------
Remember I’m only a Spanish speaker, corrections will be welcome


----------



## Everness

luis masci said:
			
		

> Leaving aside all kind of historic rights (none of us are in condition to assure seriously any of them are indeed true) and getting rid of any passion about it, the real fact is that these islands are geographically placed on Argentinean Sea and just to 350 miles from the continental Argentinean land.
> So the fact these islands remain belonging to England will be an eternal supply of controversial over and over and so on, because it’s at least very annoying to have ships and planes from other country come and go in our own space.
> Remember I’m only a Spanish speaker, corrections will be welcome



That's another argument that Argentineans have used to claim sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands (aka Falklands). There are historical and geographical arguments backing Argentina's claims. However, the fact that the almost 3,000 kelpers (Falkland Island inhabitants) want to keep rooting for Beckham and not for Messi in future World Cups is still the strongest argument Brits have come up with to keep the status quo. Don Luis, I don't see this one going your way. Sorry.


----------



## maxiogee

luis masci said:
			
		

> Leaving aside all kind of historic rights (none of us are in condition to assure seriously any of them are indeed true) and getting rid of any passion about it, the real fact is that these islands are geographically placed on Argentinean Sea and just to 350 miles from the continental Argentinean land.
> So the fact these islands remain belonging to England will be an eternal supply of controversial over and over and so on, because it’s at least very annoying to have ships and planes from other country come and go in our own space.


350 miles is a bit excessive to be claiming as "our space".  200 nautical miles is usually the extent of the exclusive economic zone - and that usually allows for free passage of ships of other countries.

As Everness declines to answer (as elsewhere) my question on the islands, may I ask you as an Argentinian?
Spain claimed the islands.
How did Spain's claim pass to Argentina as a result of the independence of the territory of Argentina - did Spain also grant independence to the Malvinas in some way?


----------



## Everness

Everness said:
			
		

> That's another argument that Argentineans have used to claim sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands (aka Falklands). There are historical and geographical arguments backing Argentina's claims. However, the fact that the almost 3,000 kelpers (Falkland Island inhabitants) want to keep rooting for Beckham and not for Messi in future World Cups is still the strongest argument Brits have come up with to keep the status quo. Don Luis, I don't see this one going your way. Sorry.



Don Luis, here's some information about Argentina's claim over the Malvinas Islands (aka Falklands). The strongest point is that "sovereignty of the islands was transferred to Argentina from Spain upon independence (a principle known as uti possidetis)." Best wishes in your endeavor!

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


----------



## don maico

Blackleaf said:


> So what do the Argentinians want the islands for if it isn't their natural resources?
> 
> The Falklands will NEVER belong to Argentina.  Why?  Because the islanders will either vote to be British, as they have done on numerous occasions, or they will vote to become an independent nation, neither British or Argentinian.  No matter how much the Argies moan and groan, they'll never become Argentinian.



yes they will eventually .................believe me !


----------



## Blackleaf

Yeah?  How?  What are the Argies going to do?  ILLEGALLY invade them again as they did in 1982?  If they did, they'd get their arses kicked again because the Royal Navy is much stronger now than it was in 1982 and is one of only two true Blue Water navies in the world.

And if it was successful in its illegal invasion, it'll have to put up with sanctions and punishments from the United Nations and will somehow have to get rid of the few thousand people who have lived their all their lives.  What will it do?  Shoot them all in cold blood?  Send them to another country?

Not only that, but the islands rightfully belong to Britain by international law.  According to UN law, the people of a dependent territory must vote to decide which country they want to belong to.  Time and time again the people of the Falklands vote to remain Britain.  Therefore it is rightfully ours and there's not much anyone can do about it.

And it doesn't surprise me that countries like Spain and France supported Argentina in the Falklands War.  After all, it was a dictatorship and countries that aren't used to being democracies, countries that have only been democracies for just a few decades - such as Spain and France - will always have support for similar countries such as Argentina.


----------



## Whisky con ron

Blackleaf said:


> And it doesn't surprise me that countries like Spain and France supported Argentina in the Falklands War. After all, it was a dictatorship and countries that aren't used to being democracies, countries that have only been democracies for just a few decades - such as Spain and France - will always have support for similar countries such as Argentina.


 
Tengo un refrán buenísimo para esto:  "Qué tiene que ver el culo con la pestaña?".

Hasta que me lo editen, claro.

Chau!


----------



## don maico

Blackleaf said:


> Yeah?  How?  What are the Argies going to do?  ILLEGALLY invade them again as they did in 1982?  If they did, they'd get their arses kicked again because the Royal Navy is much stronger now than it was in 1982 and is one of only two true Blue Water navies in the world.
> 
> And if it was successful in its illegal invasion, it'll have to put up with sanctions and punishments from the United Nations and will somehow have to get rid of the few thousand people who have lived their all their lives.  What will it do?  Shoot them all in cold blood?  Send them to another country?
> 
> Not only that, but the islands rightfully belong to Britain by international law.  According to UN law, the people of a dependent territory must vote to decide which country they want to belong to.  Time and time again the people of the Falklands vote to remain Britain.  Therefore it is rightfully ours and there's not much anyone can do about it.
> 
> And it doesn't surprise me that countries like Spain and France supported Argentina in the Falklands War.  After all, it was a dictatorship and countries that aren't used to being democracies, countries that have only been democracies for just a few decades - such as Spain and France - will always have support for similar countries such as Argentina.



The last paragrph is nonensense so i'll ignore it.
Successive British Governments have for deacades been looking at a way of weedling out of the Falklands as they are of little value and now are costing us far too much .
The of islanders right to choose alkthoiugh laudable is in fact bogus. What we have here is post colonial flag waving on grand scale carried out by people living in the past and on the glories of a thankfully now defunct Empire.
As someone who is an Angloargentine I have a foot in both camps so to speak and whilst I dont exactly support Argentinas position either I happen to know that to a man they believe those islands to be theirs whereas we here pretend to hold the moral high ground.I passionately believe that they were not worth going to war over nor was they worth sacrificing all those lives. The war itself only served to save Thatchers political career which should have been vanquisehed anyway as it was her arrogance that refused to believe inteligence reports that the Argentines intended to invade. She subsequently felt the need to save face.Prior to the war lease back arrangements were being diuscussed which would've meant that over a period of time the islands would have attained Argentine sovereignty. Th Argentine Junta  by invading commited idiocy and paid the price. I believe that in time and if the Argentines dont indulge in any more aggressive posturing the islands status may well change .
bTW I have  greater issues over South Georgia, South Sandwich island and the peninsula section of the Antartica that Argentina also claims as their own for they have absolutely no justifiable claim over these territories whereas they do re the Malvinas


----------



## don maico

Whisky con ron said:


> Tengo un refrán buenísimo para esto:  "Qué tiene que ver el culo con la pestaña?".
> 
> Hasta que me lo editen, claro.
> 
> Chau!


Perdona pero no comprendo el chiste


----------



## Dandee

*Originally Posted by Blackleaf *
*So what do the Argentinians want the islands for if it isn't their natural resources?*
*The Falklands will NEVER belong to Argentina. Why? Because the islanders will either vote to be British, as they have done on numerous occasions, or they will vote to become an independent nation, neither British or Argentinian. No matter how much the Argies moan and groan, they'll never become Argentinian.*

¡Qué cambiados están los británicos!¡Que considerados se muestran hoy respecto de los Malvinenses! ¿No eran *Kelpers *para ustedes esos isleños???.
Los malvinenses son argentinos no por voluntad o elección de ellos es simplemente porque cualquier persona humana nacida en territorio de la República Argentina es argentino. En Argentina impera la Ley del suelo exclusívamente. Si por la razón que sea ellos decidieran no pertenecer más a nuestra nación tienen el derecho, como cualquier argentino, de irse cuando quieran y vivir en el lugar del mundo que les plazca. Son libres.
Cuando Argentina retome la legítima posesión de las islas, esperemos que sea por vía diplomática y por retiro definitivo de los invasores británicos, los malvinenses podrán decidir según su voluntad. No creo que se les haga tan difícil porque en ese momento sopesarán por historia el abandono, la discriminación y el desprecio con que la "corona británica" los mantuvo hasta que Argntina les hiciera recordar en el '82 que los los "KELPERS" todavía estaban allí.
Saludos.
Dandee.


----------



## don maico

mmmm  yes there is small community of Welsh people living  in two Patagonian towns called Trelew and Puert Madryn . They are Argentine citizens not by choice but because they were borne on Argentine territory.
The Falklands / Malvinas are part of the continental shelf that binds them to the mainland. They were also from 1916 - 1833 Argentine territory the inhabitants  were then subsequently kicked out by foreign English speaking invaders. Maybe this was as revenge for the military defeats suffered by the Crown in 1806 /1807 at the hands of the Creoles of Buenos Aires led by one Santiago Liniers- a Frenchman


----------



## cuchuflete

When I saw this thread come back to life, I hoped, foolishly, that there might be a new idea.  Instead, it's just repititions of things that were said many times, many pages ago.

Warm thanks to Whisky con ron for a very astute observation!

Has anyone got anything new to say on this topic?


----------



## becky_tai

Dandee said:


> .
> Cuando Argentina retome la legítima posesión de las islas, esperemos que sea por vía diplomática y por retiro definitivo de los invasores británicos, los malvinenses podrán decidir según su voluntad.


Si Argentina vuelve a intentar tomar (ojo, no "retomar") posesión *ilegal *(según las Naciones Unidas) por otra *invasión* de las islas, creo que ya sabemos lo que va a pasar. Ojalá que no pase.


----------



## don maico

cuchuflete said:


> When I saw this thread come back to life, I hoped, foolishly, that there might be a new idea.  Instead, it's just repititions of things that were said many times, many pages ago.
> 
> Warm thanks to Whisky con ron for a very astute observation!
> 
> Has anyone got anything new to say on this topic?


Weeel I am sorry but I have just joined and just now am not sure what there is new that can be said


----------



## don maico

It seems to me that since we have are in a postion where a compromise is necessary.Prior to the invasion a leasebck arrangement  was talked about whereby whilst the Argentines would have official sovereingty over the islands and could therefore legitimately call them Argentine, the islanders would for the foreseable future be allowed live there as British citizens flying their own flag whilst at the same time able to trade with Argentine mainland.All oil/gas rights would be shared between the two nations The leaseback would last about 99 years where upon the islands would revert to being Argentine.
The fear of the Kelpers is perfectly understandable given the appalling governments that have existed in the Argentine nad the flaky state of its economy.
BTW the kelpers have been labeled "Bennies" by the forces after the "Crossroads" character. When told not to do so by officers they relabelled them "Stills" as in Still Bennies


----------



## natasha2000

cuchuflete said:


> I suggest a look at this: http://www.yendor.com/vanished/falklands-war.html
> 
> Chuchu


 


cuchuflete said:


> http://www.yendor.com/vanished/s-index.html
> 
> Cuchuflete


 
Sorry for coming so late....

Chuchuflete, these links cannot be opened (at least I cannot open them). When I click them, the site says it is forbitten to see it (or at least I am not allowed to see it) 

Could the others open these?


----------



## don maico

No, not at all


----------



## Eugin

natasha2000 said:


> Could the others open these?


 
No, Natasha, I couldn´t either... and I am also interested in what it´s being said inside of them...


----------



## maxiogee

cuchuflete said:


> When I saw this thread come back to life, I hoped, foolishly, that there might be a new idea.  Instead, it's just repititions of things that were said many times, many pages ago.
> 
> Warm thanks to Whisky con ron for a very astute observation!
> 
> Has anyone got anything new to say on this topic?





don maico said:


> Weeel I am sorry but I have just joined and just now am not sure what there is new that can be said




Well don maico, the answer to your problem is to read the preceding posts innit 

As to having something new to say… how about this—
* *Why* does a group of islands over 450 kilometres from anywhere have to *belong to somewhere*?​


----------



## cuchuflete

Sorry Natasha,
The worked when posted months ago...I'll try to see if I can find updated links.  If I recall correctly, it's a fairly detailed, fairly objective history, written by an Argentine.

It may take a while to find them.

regards,
Cuchu





natasha2000 said:


> Sorry for coming so late....
> 
> Chuchuflete, these links cannot be opened (at least I cannot open them). When I click them, the site says it is forbitten to see it (or at least I am not allowed to see it)
> 
> Could the others open these?


----------



## cuchuflete

Here is a link for one of the sites.

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cach...ndor.com+"falklands"&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1


----------



## cuchuflete

don maico said:


> i am not going to spend hours reading preceding posts particuplarly in a thread as long as this.



Of course not!

Here are some of the risks of reading what others have already said:

1- You might learn something new.
2- You might discover that there are more than just your own viewpoint and an opposing one.
3- You might avoid restating what has already been said, and far more eloquently, and with more of a factual basis.
4- You might demonstrate a bit of courtesy towards others with an interest in the topic, rather than just proclaiming.

Of course it's just so much easier to enter into an ongoing conversation, and proudly declare what is right.

That's not so very different from what governments do when they seize land masses while negotiating, or just whenever they happen to have the military force to get away with it.

You may have your pick of the legacies of Thatcher and Galtieri.  They both stink up the South Atlantic.


----------



## don maico

cuchuflete said:


> Of course not!
> 
> Here are some of the risks of reading what others have already said:
> 
> 1- You might learn something new.
> 2- You might discover that there are more than just your own viewpoint and an opposing one.
> 3- You might avoid restating what has already been said, and far more eloquently, and with more of a factual basis.
> 4- You might demonstrate a bit of courtesy towards others with an interest in the topic, rather than just proclaiming.
> 
> Of course it's just so much easier to enter into an ongoing conversation, and proudly declare what is right.
> 
> That's not so very different from what governments do when they seize land masses while negotiating, or just whenever they happen to have the military force to get away with it.
> 
> You may have your pick of the legacies of Thatcher and Galtieri.  They both stink up the South Atlantic.



1)I simply havent the time to trawl through this site of whatever thread might interest me in addition to all the various other sites i visit.Its quite possible to get the " gist" just by reading a few.
2)I am fully aware of others viewpoints and do respect them
3) please refrain from insulting my English or patronising me . I have not insulted you or anyone else in here. My English is perfectly acceptable btw.
4) I was not being discourteous at all at least it was not my intention but when someone jumps down my throat I do feel inclined to defend myself.

5) i didnt join this forum to get invoved with arguements but simply to express my opnion about things and to learn those of others which i am quite capable of respecting. I am sorry that you think I came to abuse, all I can say is I havent so please cut me some slack as they Stateside


----------



## maxiogee

don maico said:


> i am not going to spend hours reading preceding posts particuplarly in a thread as long as this. I am not a complete numpty as yet


You are achieving a high rating on my numptyometer at present.
Why should anyone bother to read the posts fo someone who declares from the outset on any contentious thread that they haven't bothered to read what has gone before? This is the mark of a truly blinkered and "I know I'm right" individual"




> as to your last point I think its called national pride or something like that.


Perhaps when you find out you'll be good enough to let me know. I don't pay much attention to opinions which have been as deeply researched as "or somthing like that."

I would again ask why does anywhere have to belong to somewhere else? Why could it not be a self-governing community - fully independent, if it so wished. That is not my way of saying that the islands shouldn't 'belong' to Britain - it is more that the debate doesn't automatically have to be an "either Britain" / "or Argentina" debate. I'm sorry that my English wasn't transparent enough for you to be able to see this.




> I am not sure what the general tone of your posting is all about but never mind keep swigging the Guinness


Please refrain from rude, facetious and stereotypical comments. I'm sure you wouldn't wish to come across any directed at you.

There is no reason why you should know this, but, I am a recovering alcoholic and haven't had anything to do with Guinness or any of its cousins for just over nine years. As a "non-drinker" I am one of the 1.25 million in the population who do not drink alcohol - be it Guinness or anything else.


----------



## natasha2000

cuchuflete said:


> Here is a link for one of the sites.
> 
> http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cach...ndor.com+"falklands"&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1


 

Thanks, Chuchu...

I'll read first what has been said here and learn. Don't have much opinion nor knowledge about the subject, I'm afraid....


----------



## don maico

The first sentence i wont go over as it/was confrontational
The secod- I was born in Argentina of English parentage and was subjected at school to nationalsitic diatribe concerning the islands.
I am afraid you'll have to accept that I wont be reading all the posts, thats not my bag. some yes but not all.To me its not  some kind of academic exercise but an avenue for the sharing of opinions.I rather like to cut a swathe thorugh any nebulous intelectualising with the "simple sword of truth". I know for a fact that the Argentine position is based on pride.Although they are a very generous people on the whole, they are also easily slightead as far as they are concerned the islands are under British occupation. The British on the oither hand choose to adopt the moral high ground rather as they do with Gibraltar and , dare I say it , Ulster. My cynical self rather points the finger at post colonial flagwaving by the many in the UK.
A compromise would seem the only option- joint sovereignty ,shared oil/gas rights or if you prefer self government by the Kelpers who would seem to be people who cannot live like the rest of us.


----------



## .   1

don maico said:


> I rather like to cut a swathe thorugh any nebulous intelectualising with the "simple sword of truth".


Thanks for that.
I now know that you know the truth and I will happily know that whatever you say you know to be true must be true because you say that you know it to be true so I need not bother to crosscheck your utterly factual opinions.
We can't let rational thinking get in the way of a good ranting cant or canted rant.

.,,


----------



## maxiogee

don maico said:


> I was born in Argentina of English parentage and was subjected at school to nationalsitic diatribe concerning the islands.


So "you've seen both days" as we say here in Ireland.



> I rather like to cut a swathe thorugh any nebulous intelectualising with the "simple sword of truth".


I like to think that my intellectualising isn't nebulous, but usually a search for comment from people like yourself - those who know whereof they speak  
I look forward to picking over some themes with you.

I feel a need to caution someone who speaks of a "simple sword of truth"!
Google "simple sword of truth" +Aitken.
You might prefer a less tarnished weapon  




> The British on the oither hand choose to adopt the moral high ground rather as they do with Gibraltar and , dare I say it , Ulster. My cynical self rather points the finger at post colonial flagwaving by the many in the UK.


Fair points - I think that many British people don't actually know why they wish these places to stay "British" — but feel that 'the others' have no right to them. 
I feel that, were a British prime minister to announce that a series of new hospitals could be built if these places were 'released', there would be new hospitals springing up everywhere.


----------

