Argentina to raise Falklands UK 'militarisation' at UN

[Grig]

Distance between mainland and territory means virtually nothing, there are people who live on that island and the British have given them the right to self-determination, as have the United Nations. Argentina has no right to question what the Falkland Islanders want, and for now they wish to remain British. I also like how you said Kirchner "did do Argentina some good", like she's suddenly changed and become bad

Argentina are literally doing it for colonisation and official "trolling" reasons, they do not need the islands, they only seem to want them for the sake of wanting them, like a child wanting a teddy bear but being told no because another child has it. The British knew nothing about the natural resources (not between 1830-1970ish) until they were recently discovered - besides, it is our territory so we can do what we want. Just because Argentina is in a huff over it doesn't mean we should stop the Falklands doing whatever they want, and if that includes drilling for oil then that's their decision. Argentina are more in the wrong here, and if they were too slow to move in on the Islands when the British took over then that's their fault for being constantly at war with the Spanish and amongst themselves. It's a child chucking their toys out of their pram for not getting their way, and it's made worse by a constitution built on warmongering.

They don't need it, but they want it. Anyone would fight over some extra land, no matter how insignificant or small they are. Look at China and Japan fighting for the Daoyu Islands, which are an uninhabited bunch of rocks . They would obviously want to remain British because a bigger portion of their 3k population are British.

The Falklands islands are 300 miles away from Argentina, going on that claim to sovereignty should the following territories which are closer to one another than 300 miles belong to as follows..

Does Cuba belong to the United States? does Belgium/the Netherlands and the west of France belong to the United Kingdom? Alaska to Canada? Alaska to Russia? the western half of Argentina to Chile?

The above also have historical claims to one another which Argentina doesn't even have as Argentina didn't even exist as a nation when we acquired the Falkland Islands.

I think it is very unfair for you to start giving comparisons of countries owning each-other, these are simply a small set of islands with a very small population of inhabitants. You can see many cases where such deputes go for territorial proximity as well as historical claims.

Oh and by the way, Alaska did belong to Russia. Russia sold it to America for money in the early 1900s. That is nothing like current claims for smaller islands. You are giving comparisons that are simply irrelevant to such situations.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I think it is very unfair for you to start giving comparisons of countries owning each-other, these are simply a small set of islands with a very small population of inhabitants. You can see many cases where such deputes go for territorial proximity as well as historical claims.

Mongolia is also a small country in terms of population density across its land, that doesn't mean it ought to be owned by China or Russia.

Oh and by the way, Alaska did belong to Russia. Russia sold it to America for money in the early 1900s. That is nothing like current claims for smaller islands. You are giving comparisons that are simply irrelevant to such situations.

I know, but i'm giving examples to show how ridiculous claiming based on how close the islands are are.

[Grig]

Mongolia is also a small country in terms of population density across its land, that doesn't mean it ought to be owned by China or Russia.



I know, but i'm giving examples to show how ridiculous claiming based on how close the islands are are.

Mongolia is yet again a different situation. It never had a murky issue with colonialism by western imperial powers like all of South America did. It had a historic Mongol Empire under Genghis Khan and co. Although the Qing dynasty still had control of Mongolia, it has had a further history (dating back well before) not related to China as much. So that was just a form of imperialism- just like any other colonies European countries had. You see a dispute happening over Tibet for the last few decades, that has greater claim due to history, which islands such as the Falklands doesn't have.

You can't generalize cases, I was stating the Falklands is a murky issue because it is still a product of imperialism and simply didn't gain independence like the rest of South America due to a small land mass and population. Hence, over the years under so much British influence, it is now viewed British. Fair dos to the British, if they really wanted independence and succession they would have acted ages ago and the people don't. But Argentina will find it hard to claim it belongs to them if we go by history, Britain has a stronger stance on that.

[GommeInc]

Regardless of who wants what, the Falklands is inhabited and those who inhabit it have the final say on the matter. They want to remain under British control, and so they should be. Demoracy at its finest. It's not some uninhabited rock, it's a large land mass with people on that has been claimed for years. Argentina can't just burst in claiming they own the island, especially when those who inhabit it are content with the way things are.

Less we forget, it's not necessarily what the British or the Argentines want, but what the Islanders want. It's just pathetic that Argentina has gone crying to its neighbours and the UN because Britain and the Falklands do not want to change, when as you said, there is no reason to other than to own more land they do not need

[jasey]

No, no, no. You do not try to take the thread off-topic by creating a post complaining about someone who figuratively spoke of assassinating someone, let's face it GommeInc isn't going to assassinate her? At least he's inserted a little passion into the thread. What's your post done? Absolutely nothing, it's not even on topic and you said as much yourself "I am not taking a side on the political issue". Shush.

I am not taking the thread off-topic. GommeInc brought forth the idea that Cristina should be assassinated and there was no indication that it was figurative. Just because you fall on one side of the issue that coordinates with someone else's view doesn't mean you can decide that their irrational statements are simply 'passion'. It was an overreaction and truly a wrong thing to say. If you want me to take a side then I will say that I think Britain can be ridiculously nationalistic and that the British news is only blowing up this news story to distract the United Kingdom from their financial troubles.

How to wear a pencil skirt and whinge so much until your face turns the same colour as your nations flag does not make a politician. Her only claim to fame is piggybacking off the success of her husband, he brought in changes that made the country go through an economic boom when he was in power. As an individual her only talent is being hateful towards an island she has no claim over and leeching off the hate of Argentina, who still think they have a right over the islands despite the fact they only went to war in the 1980s because their corrupt military Government wanted to divert internal pressures by giving its citizens something to moan about - the Falklands.

What's more pathetic about this woman is she is getting Chile, Brazil, Peru and a few other Latin America/South American countries involved when the problem is purely between Great Britain AND Argentina, but the pathetic woman is too stupid to go it alone. Britain does not want to discuss the islands because the occupants of the islands want to remain British, but the woman is too thick to get that through her head. She's using pointless rhetoric - the Brits are bering colonialist - when we've grown out of that and what she's too stupid to realise is she is literally the pot calling the kettle black, because what she is doing is some ancient colonialist ethic of "I want it, I shall have" without a thought for democracy, something her country should know all to well when they broke apart from Spanish rule in the 1800s.

The woman needs a damn hard slap in the face, and I hope the UN do it for us. She's acting like spoilt brat. It's shocking the Agentine constitution has the Las Malvinas as a part of their constitution - surely the UN would have a say on a country who has war and takeovers as part of their constitution?

I dislike the tinges of misogyny that come forth in that post. Bringing up what kind of clothing Cristina wears is in no way pertinent to the issue. Just because she is a woman doesn't mean you need to throw in little jabs about her gender or clothing. She does not whine but rather acts on behalf of the desires of her country which is exactly what the leader of a democratic nation is expected to do. While it could be true that the issue is being brought up by Argentina to distract its citizens from something else, the British are doing the same. Like I mentioned above in this post, it is the British news agents who are only blowing up this story to give the citizens a scapegoat to, as you say, 'moan' about in light of the other issues facing the United Kingdom.

The Falklands are British and they want to remain British. She should learn what democracy is before having a sulk.

The case of the Chagos Archipelago kind of mirrors exactly what you say Argentina shouldn't be doing. Although this piece of history is rarely studied and swept under the rug all too often, it is a black mark against British politics. Settlers of the islands had lived there for generations working on farms and agricultural projects before the British government, in a move to appease America, sold the Chagos Archipelago to America to be used for military purposes. It was with Britain's hands that the thousands of islanders were involuntarily loaded up on a ship and deported around the early 1970s and henceforth scattered elsewhere to live in poverty. This is a current case in the United Nations Human Rights court and I hope the islanders can return to their rightful home.

What I am saying with this example is that Britain isn't innocent when it comes to the rights of those living in dependencies across the oceans of the globe. Selling an island for political reasons and tossing its longstanding inhabitants away is an unacceptable move. How can the British do this and then complain when another nation moves in that direction? That is very hypocritical.

[GommeInc]

British news is only blowing up this news story to distract the United Kingdom from their financial troubles.

Doing a dreadful job considering all that's in the news lately is Fabio Capello quitting his job as England Manager and that other footballer winning his fight against tax avoidance accusations. The Falklands news is pretty low-key, no one is talking about it so I can only assume you've not been paying attention to the news :/ What has been reported is played down - infact, what's been reported is pretty standard - Argentina say this, the British say this and it's left in the dark for weeks before any other news crops up. It's not being blown up at all, so yeah, you've clearly not seen the news :/

Also, I never brought up her gender - she's only popular because she looks good, everywhere states this whenever any information on the woman crops up. Good looks are not gender specific, men can look good too - so cut the misogyny crap because it's a mute argument Her political achievements can be written on a postal stamp. The economic boom? Thank her husband for that, she's only riding on the benefits. Her only achivement is thriving off the hatred of the Argentine people who for some reason want the Falklands, when before 1979 they couldn't give a damn.

As far as history goes, Argentina have very little to do with the islands and only want to own them for the sake of owning them. Any debates between Argentina and Britain are pretty boring, Argentina want to make peace yet go against it by being aggressive - and drag in other countries on what is a pretty petty discussion. Britain do not appear to be aggressive, we've not called for other countries to stop trade - most things that have been stated are through retaliation e.g. Cameron calling Argentina colonialist was in response to their continued when our position is quite clear - it's up to the citizens of the Island to decide, not Argentina or the Brits. The fate of the Islands does not to be discussed - the UN allows for countries, settlements and islands to have the right to self-determination, and the Islanders want to remain under British rule. It's as simple as that. Why Argentina have suddenly decided to complain to the UN over this is beyond me, when Britain are working well within the law as are the Falkland Islanders.

[dbgtz]

I don't see why they keep complaining, all that will happen if they decide to invade is that they will lose and lots of lives pointlessly lost.

[Chippiewill]

I guess we should also be punished for militarising our coastline also? Our land, our rules.

It's pretty standard to have some form of military contingent to defend sovereign landmass and islands need ships to be defended effectively.

[-:Undertaker:-]

If you want me to take a side then I will say that I think Britain can be ridiculously nationalistic and that the British news is only blowing up this news story to distract the United Kingdom from their financial troubles.

Why shouldn't we be patriotic in general or concerning this issue? (not nationalistic, see Orwell definition between both) - this [Argentina] is an aggressive nation which has in the past led to a war between our two nations which in the process killed hundreds of British servicemen in retaking the islands and still continues to threaten our nation over these islands which belong to us. I am probably the most weary on these forums of government tricks, but I can tell you this - this escalation has nothing to do with our financial situation and everything to do with an enemy foreign power potentially invading our sovereign territory again.

I think you will find that its Argentina yet again who are using the issue as a distraction, last time it was because of a military junta on the brink of collapse and a broken economy - this time its because of exactly the same, minus the military junta and replaced with a party wanting to win an election.

[GommeInc]

Apparently we've deployed nuclear weapons to the area... Argentina really are paranoid and aggressive as of late :/ I really hate how Héctor Timerman keeps saying "Give peace a chance" when it is them who is acting aggressive - how is blocking trade with the Falklands "peaceful?" I hope someone slapped him in New York when he showed these apparent slides of military bases in the Falklands - of course it will have some, they got invaded by Argentina for no reason before, the Islanders are going to want to keep defences in the area, and the fact it is British Territory should make it pretty obvious the British can do what they want.

The Guardian have a video of Kirchner giving her speech on the issue... My God she's irritating, she speaks like we invaded the Falklands in 1970, and that we started the war. The only war over the Falklands was started by her aggressive country, before that the Falklands were sitting there empty and we took over. Does she not understand factual history, or was she and the rest of her country taken over and controlled by the fake news her country made during the Falklands war - which made it seem like they were winning the whole time and sank half our ships when that was far from the truth. I can't believe this is being discussed, though the UN seem to be ignoring her and her country.