Argentine protesters rally outside British Embassy in Buenos Aires

snafuk35

sarkozy wrote: »

Wrong. The Qing Dynasty ceded Hong Kong Island to Britain in perpetuity in 1842 after the first Opium War waged by Britain. It was in 1848, after the Second Opium War, that the 99-year lease was taken out on Lantau Island, Kowloon and Stonecutter's Island.

It was only in 1983 that Hong Kong was demoted from its status as a British Crown Colony to 'Dependent Territory'.

In other words, Hong Kong was obtained through a Government-sanctioned trade war, fomented with the intention of crow-barring open the Chinese economy to British goods (initially opium).

Giving back the former colony was due to a new geopolitical strategy with a clearly emerging global power rather than altruism of any sort. The Sino-British agreement setting out the transfer - the island's autonomous status, governance system and status as a free port - prove that.


Are you from the Malvinas Islands? Why do you care?


Those claims seem to be disputed. The first reliable sighting is attributed to a Dutch explorer Sebald de Weert in 1600; it was in 1690 that Briton Captain John Strong sighted them and landed there.

However, 'East Falkland' was first settled by the French under Louis Antoine de Bougainville in 1764. It was at least a whole year later that 'West Falkland' was settled by under captain John Byron, who seemed unaware of the French presence. Shortly after, France ceded its claim to Spain who attacked 'Port Egmont' and placed it under the authority of the Buenos Aires colonial administration.

In 1770, Spain temporarily expelled Britain from the islands altogether and this nearly brought the two countries to war but, believing it to not be in Spain's strategic interests, signed Port Egmont (but not the whole archipelago) to Britain. But feeling the effects of the American Revolution, Britain ended its presence there in 1774, leaving behind a plaque asserting her continued claim; the Spanish did the same, by the way, but left its Governor and a small presence there until 1806 and a plaque staking her claim there.

In between then and 1828, an Argentine, 12 years after Argentinian independence was declared, settled the islands with permission of Spain and France. Between 1832 and 1840, settlement claims to-and-froed between Argentina and Britain, and it was only after the establishment of a Naval Port there that led to Britain finally establishing it a permanent colony.

I believe this evidence complicates you claim that "[t]he islands have NEVER been Argentinian. Britain sighted, claimed and settled the islands before Argentina ever existed."

The Falklands Islanders have made it clear they wish to be British citizens and have refused to join Argentina. The Argentines tried to force them to do so in 1982 and they were sent packing by the British. Therefore the Falklands are rightfull British. The Argies can get stuffed. If they want another war then the British will have right on their side and I'm pretty sure they will use military force again if their position is threatened.

sarkozy

So, apart from the facts above, and clearly the precedence of 'self-determination' in international law (a much more slippery thing than commoners understand), you'll continue with the nationalistic nonsense? As bad as the 'Argies', then.

May I remind you that in 1982 Argentina was ruled by a military dictatorship which the UK, until that point, publicly supported as it did Pinochet's dictatorship in Chile. Now Argentina is a democracy.

Lemming

sarkozy wrote: »

May I remind you that in 1982 Argentina was ruled by a military dictatorship which the UK, until that point, publicly supported as it did Pinochet's dictatorship in Chile. Now Argentina is a democracy.

And? Your point regarding today is?

sarkozy

Lemming wrote: »

And? Your point regarding today is?

And ... a simple historical corrective to the one-sided accounts of the Falklands question on this thread to date. The blasé account of the 1982 Falklands invasion by the Argentinian junta is inaccurate and misleading to perpetuate the myths I set out above.

I'm deafened by the silence met by Britons or supporters on this thread since I corrected the claim that the UK were the first and only to lay claim to the islands.

Clearly, politics is never so clear-cut.

goose2005

Why don't the Argies return Argentina to the Mapuche, Kolla, Toba, Guaraní, Wichí, Diaguita, Mocoví, and Huarpe?

goose2005

goose2005 wrote: »

Why don't the Argies return Argentina to the Mapuche, Kolla, Toba, Guaraní, Wichí, Diaguita, Mocoví, and Huarpe?

I'm a firm believer that the Mapuche, Kolla, Toba, Guaraní, Wichí, Diaguita, Mocoví, and Huarpe should in turn return Argentina to the Dinoasaurs, who should probably be handing it back to the smaller lizards, who should be handing it back to the fish, who should be handing it back to the bacteria.

sarkozy

goose2005 wrote: »

Why don't the Argies return Argentina to the Mapuche, Kolla, Toba, Guaraní, Wichí, Diaguita, Mocoví, and Huarpe?

Well, at the very least, the state needs to acknowledge past genocides against the native peoples and improve ethic groups' rights. This is something people talked to me about while in Argentina.

junder

sarkozy wrote: »

And ... a simple historical corrective to the one-sided accounts of the Falklands question on this thread to date. The blasé account of the 1982 Falklands invasion by the Argentinian junta is inaccurate and misleading to perpetuate the myths I set out above.

I'm deafened by the silence met by Britons or supporters on this thread since I corrected the claim that the UK were the first and only to lay claim to the islands.

Clearly, politics is never so clear-cut.

You have presented a single Historical account, thing is it's not hard to find alternative accounts the refute yours for example

http://www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/falkland/gettingitright.pdf

http://www.falklands.info/history/history1.html


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Falkland_Islands

All very interesting but does not negate the fact that the present occupants of the falklands wish to remain British

Batsy

Jorah wrote: »

1) I'm not a troll.

You're considered a troll by many on this forum if you don't believe that the Falkland Islands should be given to Argentina - a country which has never owned the islands - even though the Falkland Islanders wish to be British.

Batsy

I'm deafened by the silence met by Britons or supporters on this thread since I corrected the claim that the UK were the first and only to lay claim to the islands.

Britain and France both have better claims to the Falklands than Argentina does as they sighted and colonised the islands before Argentina even existed.

Britain has a better claim than France because France abandoned its colony and gave it to the Spanish.

The dirty Spanish - the ancestors of the Argies - then tried to kick the British off the islands so that they can own the whole lot, despite the fact that the British were there first.

When English explorer John Davis, commander of the Desire, one of the ships belonging to Thomas Cavendish's second expedition to the New World, separated from Cavendish off the coast of what is now southern Argentina, he decided to make for the Strait of Magellan in order to find Cavendish. On 9 August 1592 a severe storm battered his ship, and Davis drifted under bare masts, taking refuge "among certain Isles never before discovered." Consequently, for a time the Falklands were known as "Davis Land" or "Davis' Land."

In 1594, they were visited by English commander Richard Hawkins, who, combining his own name with that of Queen Elizabeth I, the "Virgin Queen", gave the islands the name of "Hawkins' Maidenland."

In 1600, Sebald de Weert, a Dutchman, visited them and called them the Sebald Islands (in Spanish, "Islas Sebaldinas" or "Sebaldes"), a name which they bore on some Dutch maps into the 19th century.

English Captain John Strong sailed between the two principal islands in 1690 and called the passage "Falkland Channel" (now Falkland Sound), after Anthony Cary, 5th Viscount Falkland (1659–1694), who as Commissioner of the Admiralty had financed the expedition and later became First Lord of the Admiralty. From this body of water the island group later took its collective name.

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

And here's a bit about how the islands became British. Basically, the French settled the islands first. The British, not even realising the French were there, came along and claimed parts of the islands for Britain. Then the French gave their Falklands territory to the Spanish - fair enough - but, unbelievably, the dirty Spanish (the ancestors of the Argies) then tried to kick the British, who were there before them, off the islands so that they can have the whole lot.

France established a colony at Port St. Louis, on East Falkland's Berkeley Sound coast in 1764. The French name Îles Malouines was given to the islands – malouin being the adjective for the Breton port of Saint-Malo. The Spanish name Islas Malvinas is a translation of the French name.

In 1765, Capt. John Byron, who was unaware of the French presence in the east, explored Saunders Island, in the west, named the harbour Port Egmont, and claimed this and other islands for Britain on the grounds of prior discovery. The next year Captain John MacBride established a British settlement at Port Egmont. These events were nearly the cause of a war between Britain and Spain, both countries having sent armed fleets to contest the barren but strategically important sovereignty of the islands. In 1766, France agreed to leave, and Spain agreed to reimburse Louis de Bougainville, who had established a settlement at his own expense. The Spaniards assumed control in 1767 and re-named Port St. Louis as Puerto Soledad.

Meanwhile, the British presence in the west continued, until interrupted by Spain during the Falkland Crisis* from 10 July 1770 to 22 January 1771. As a result of economic pressures stemming from the upcoming American War of Independence, Britain unilaterally chose to withdraw from many overseas settlements in 1774. On 20 May 1776 the British forces under the command of Lt. Clayton formally took their leave of Port Egmont, while leaving a plaque asserting Britain's continuing sovereignty over the islands.

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


* The Falkland Crisis, 1770

In June 1770, the Spanish governor of Buenos Aires sent five frigates to Britain's Port Egmont, landing some 1600 marines. The small British force present, left under the command there of George Farmer, promptly surrendered. When Parliament assembled in November, the MPs, outraged by this insult to national honour, demanded action from the North government. Many were angered by what they saw as Britain's failure to prevent France from annexing Corsica in 1768 and feared a similar situation occurring in the Falklands. The Foreign Office "began to mobilise for a potential war".

Amid this flurry of threats and counter-threats, the Spanish attempted to strengthen their position by winning the support of France, invoking the Pacte de Famille between the two Bourbon crowns. For a time it looked as if all three countries were about to go to war, especially as the Duc de Choiseul, the French minister of war and foreign affairs, was in a militant mood. But Louis XV took fright, telling his cousin Charles III that "My minister wishes for war, but I do not." Choiseul was dismissed from office, retiring to his estates, and without French support the Spanish were obliged to seek a compromise with the British.

In January 1771, the British were allowed to restore the base at Port Egmont (which they set up before the Spanish arrived on the islands).

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


Eventually the islands became the sole possession of Britain and that has been the case ever since, except a brief period in 1982 when Argentina invaded them.

Port St. Louis/Puerto Soledad is now Port Stanley, the islands' capital.

Batsy

sarkozy wrote: »

Giving back the former colony was due to a new geopolitical strategy with a clearly emerging global power rather than altruism of any sort. The Sino-British agreement setting out the transfer - the island's autonomous status, governance system and status as a free port - prove that.

Hong Kong Island and Kowloon - two of the three provinces that make up Hong Kong - were given to Britain in perpetuity. The other province - the New Territories - was leased to Britain for 99 years in 1898. In 1984 the British and Chinese signed a declaration in which the whoke of Hong Kong would be returned after the 99 years was up. This is because Hong Kong's shipping ports, reservoirs and other vital installations were all in the New Territories. Had only the New Territories been returned to China, it would also have been difficult to accommodate those New Territories residents moving to the Kowloon Peninsula and Hong Kong Island.

Are you from the Malvinas? Why do you care?

They are not called the Malvinas. They are called the Falkland Islands. Malvinas is the Spanish name for the islands, which was adopted AFTER the islands took the English name Falkland Islands. Do you also go around calling Germany "Deutschland" and Ivory Coast "Cote d'Ivoire"?

And I care about the Falkland Islanders because the islanders are British and I don't want my government giving their islands to a foreign power against their wishes.

Those claims seem to be disputed. The first reliable sighting is attributed to a Dutch explorer Sebald de Weert in 1600; it was in 1690 that Briton Captain John Strong sighted them and landed there.

When English explorer John Davis, commander of the Desire, one of the ships belonging to Thomas Cavendish's second expedition to the New World, separated from Cavendish off the coast of what is now southern Argentina, he decided to make for the Strait of Magellan in order to find Cavendish. On 9 August 1592 a severe storm battered his ship, and Davis drifted under bare masts, taking refuge "among certain Isles never before discovered." Consequently, for a time the Falklands were known as "Davis Land" or "Davis' Land."

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

However, 'East Falkland' was first settled by the French under Louis Antoine de Bougainville in 1764. It was at least a whole year later that 'West Falkland' was settled by under captain John Byron, who seemed unaware of the French presence. Shortly after, France ceded its claim to Spain who attacked 'Port Egmont' and placed it under the authority of the Buenos Aires colonial administration.

So, basically, what that article says is Britain and France settled the islands BEFORE Spain did. Then France gave their part of the islands to Spain. Fair enough. But then the Spanish decided to kick the British out of the islands by attacking Britain's Port Egmont, even though the British were there before them, so that they could have the whole of the islands to themselves. Tut tut tut. That isn't something that would make me proud to be Spanish.

In between then and 1828, an Argentine, 12 years after Argentinian independence was declared, settled the islands with permission of Spain and France.

And that occurred several decades AFTER the British established their colony at Port Egmont.

I believe this evidence complicates you claim that "[t]he islands have NEVER been Argentinian. Britain sighted, claimed and settled the islands before Argentina ever existed."

I don't think it even matters whether parts of the islands have ever been Argentinian. History shows that the British sighted and settled the islands BEFORE the Spanish and the Argies.

Batsy

Yahew wrote: »

Given that there is a referendum on Scotland's position this is not true.

I think he's referring to the fact that many of those on here who support a Scottish independence referendum - and therefore support the Scots deciding the political status of their country - are against the Falkland Islanders having the same sort of say about their own nation.

Batsy

irishh_bob wrote: »

knowing greer , she is probabley in favour of returning the falklands to argentina , not because of any love for that country but because she nearly always goes against popular mainstream sentiment , shes an arrogant cow who like most of her kind , despises middle england , ireland , australia , america or any countrys middle class for that matter

Also on the show was another lefty - the leader of the Green Party, Caroline Lucas.

She told us all matter-of-factly that the Falklands should be "returned" to Argentina and that Britain should not be so "colonialist." In other words, she didn't care about the democratic wishes of the Falkland Islanders. She just wanted Britain to betray them (they are British citizens) and hand their islands over to a foreign power.

It just beggared belief.

irishh_bob

Batsy wrote: »

Also on the show was another lefty - the leader of the Green Party, Caroline Lucas.

She told us all matter-of-factly that the Falklands should be "returned" to Argentina and that Britain should not be so "colonialist." In other words, she didn't care about the democratic wishes of the Falkland Islanders. She just wanted Britain to betray them (they are British citizens) and hand their islands over to a foreign power.

It just beggared belief.

yes but caroline lucas is nice , besides , greer is not a lefty per say , she doesnt give a sh1t about underpriveledged people but is willing to get behind trendy lefty ( ish ) causes to feed her gigantic ego

Yahew

irishh_bob wrote: »

yes but caroline lucas is nice , besides , greer is not a lefty per say , she doesnt give a sh1t about underpriveledged people but is willing to get behind trendy lefty ( ish ) causes to feed her gigantic ego

Germaine actually comes out with a lot of sense. In her first reply on Thursday she said that people who think that banks - in their present form - need to be regulated were missing the point of why a lot of people are hired by banks - to get around the regulation.

Green Party, Caroline Lucas.

She told us all matter-of-factly that the Falklands should be "returned" to Argentina and that Britain should not be so "colonialist." In other words, she didn't care about the democratic wishes of the Falkland Islanders. She just wanted Britain to betray them (they are British citizens) and hand their islands over to a foreign power.

3,000 is not enought for self-determination. Whats the limit? I dont know but a country must be sustainable to have that right. Otherwise we would have villages who had rights to succeed.

( We should lose Cork, fair enough)

goose2005

Batsy wrote: »

Also on the show was another lefty - the leader of the Green Party, Caroline Lucas.

She told us all matter-of-factly that the Falklands should be "returned" to Argentina and that Britain should not be so "colonialist." In other words, she didn't care about the democratic wishes of the Falkland Islanders. She just wanted Britain to betray them (they are British citizens) and hand their islands over to a foreign power.

It just beggared belief.

It's odd that she's OK with imperialism, so long as it's Spanish. The Falkland islanders have lived there for over 150 years, about the same as the Chagossians, but: (http://www.chagossupport.org.uk/greens-totally-committed-to-chagossians-right-of-return-883)

Green Party leader Caroline Lucas MEP has today reiterated her party’s “total commitment” to the Chagossians’ right of return, adding her support for the principle that the Chagossians “must have control over any decisions that affect the future of the islands and the islanders.”

Unbelievable. The Chagossians are black and the British are white, so the Chagossians are in the right. The Argentines are brownish and the Falklanders are white, so the Argentines are in the right.

irishh_bob

Yahew wrote: »

Germaine actually comes out with a lot of sense. In her first reply on Thursday she said that people who think that banks - in their present form - need to be regulated were missing the point of why a lot of people are hired by banks - to get around the regulation.



3,000 is not enought for self-determination. Whats the limit? I dont know but a country must be sustainable to have that right. Otherwise we would have villages who had rights to succeed.

( We should lose Cork, fair enough)

id hardly call her thesis on the banking sector revelationary

irishh_bob

goose2005 wrote: »

It's odd that she's OK with imperialism, so long as it's Spanish. The Falkland islanders have lived there for over 150 years, about the same as the Chagossians, but: (http://www.chagossupport.org.uk/greens-totally-committed-to-chagossians-right-of-return-883)



Unbelievable. The Chagossians are black and the British are white, so the Chagossians are in the right. The Argentines are brownish and the Falklanders are white, so the Argentines are in the right.

ive been to argentina , while thier not WASP,s , argentinians are the whitest people in south america and the most european in culture

Yahew

irishh_bob wrote: »

ive been to argentina , while thier not WASP,s , argentinians are the whitest people in south america and the most european in culture

they're mostly full Spanish. That would make them white, not brown.

irishh_bob

Yahew wrote: »

they're mostly full Spanish. That would make them white, not brown.

a large percentage of them are of italian ancestry

'Few Germans too

Jonny7

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

'Few Germans too

and maybe they've been having a word in a few Argentine ears..

"ze Sudetenland, eh we mean ze Falklands are still yours.. go on.. "

I am pie

As any Argie will point out they haven't a sabre left to rattle, the military is more or less a dirty word with the current government and they are no more likely to 'invade' the falklands than they are to invade mars.

The shipping embargo was an agressive diplomatic card to play, but they will not invade. Absolutely zero chance of that happening.

john reilly

its amazing how the majority of an island invaded and colonised by the british wish to remain british. unless they killed all the native rightful owners of the land. but that wouldnt be their form.

Lemming

john reilly wrote: »

its amazing how the majority of an island invaded and colonised by the british wish to remain british. unless they killed all the native rightful owners of the land. but that wouldnt be their form.

Don't let historical fact get in the way of good aul' fantasy rant or anything ... :rolleyes:

Yahew

john reilly wrote: »

its amazing how the majority of an island invaded and colonised by the british wish to remain british. unless they killed all the native rightful owners of the land. but that wouldnt be their form.

Apparantly it was empty.

goose2005

john reilly wrote: »

its amazing how the majority of an island invaded and colonised by the british wish to remain british. unless they killed all the native rightful owners of the land. but that wouldnt be their form.[/QUOTE[
There were no natives; the first settlement was in 1824. Many of the original settlers were Argentines.

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

Batsy

goose2005 wrote: »

It's odd that she's OK with imperialism, so long as it's Spanish. The Falkland islanders have lived there for over 150 years, about the same as the Chagossians, but: (http://www.chagossupport.org.uk/greens-totally-committed-to-chagossians-right-of-return-883)

Unbelievable. The Chagossians are black and the British are white, so the Chagossians are in the right. The Argentines are brownish and the Falklanders are white, so the Argentines are in the right.

Yeah. She seems to care about the wishes of the Chagos Islanders but not about the wishes of the Falkland Islanders.

Batsy

its amazing how the majority of an island invaded and colonised by the british wish to remain british. unless they killed all the native rightful owners of the land. but that wouldnt be their form

The British didn't invade the Falkland Islands. They discovered and settled them.

Batsy

Yahew wrote: »

3,000 is not enought for self-determination.

Rubbish.

UN law states that all peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

Part of the Falkland Islands Constitution states that the majority of the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands wish to remain British and therefore the transfer of sovereignty to Argentina would be counter to their right to self-determine.