So is the consensus here that there will not be more military action? I mean, it’s one thing to say a claim is ridiculous, but another to say it won’t lead to more armed conflict (unfortunately).
Democracies don’t start wars against each other.
Thanks to the last Falklands war, Argentina is now a Democracy
No side has a clear a waterproof case. But the Falklanders don’t want to be Argentinians so that settles the issue for me.
That being said, this time the sabre rattling clowns are the British, specially that clown that they have as Prime Minister (our President is also an idiot, she is also a bitch).
Argentina has always claimed the Islands and it is true that we were expelled from them in the 1830s. Our goverment is still doing what it always does which is to put diplomatic pressure in any way they can. Unfortunately for the British Goverment our neighbourgs are prepared to back us with more than words. And those islands are not viable without the continent, the UK has poured billions of dollars so far for the benefit of 3000 persons.
I believe that a settlement will have to be reach. I read a beautifull article a couple of days ago that was titled “Stop saying Malvinas are Argentinian… Say that Argentina is for the Malvinians”. The author said that the best way to relate with the Kelpers is to open our country to them and help them in any way we can. Perhaps they will choose to remain British but, at least, we will make them our friends.
But human beings are idiots.
Good for you. 
I’m eagerly looking forward to Canada’s imperial phase, where we seize St. Pierre and Miquelon, the Turks and Caicos, and New England.
Maybe old England, too.
I think much of New England would come voluntarily, except for the Connecticut bankers.
Take 'em. Bunch of damn yankees. Besides, y’all like The Band. And The Band likes the Southern USA.
Hell, except for my fellow Arkansan Levon Helm, y’all were The Band.
It’s always bewildered me as to why Britain kept handing them back to France, after four separate invasions over a hundred years or so.
Are they that bad?
But then you would have to put up all those dual-language placards.
I heartily agree with the sentiment of the last two paragraphs. Regarding the first though, I think you’re wrong. Barring the cost of running their own defence, they already have a viable economy. Should the oil estimates/tentative finds prove even 50% accurate, they have a viable economy including funding their own defence. As for the show of support from your neighbours, it’s neither surprising nor particularly effective:
I can’t think of a single issue that’s possibly more settled than the fact that the Falklands are a British possession.
Please, don’t be ridiculous.
The problem with the Falklands is that frankly none of the sides has an absolute case. Let’s just recap:
- Discovered in the 16th century. Initial discovery claimed by Dutch, Spanish and British, and quite possible the Germans, Italians, and a number of passing tourists on a cruise ship.
- First confirmed sighting goes to the Dutch, 1600.
- First recorded landing goes to the British, 1690
- First settlement goes the the French, 1764. British settle in 1765. The two settlements are not aware of each other. And to think that we get a bad press now for not getting to know our neighbours
- Spain acquire French settlement in 1767. Attack british settlement. Politicians on both side accuse the others of being colonialists. Issue revolved via treaty, and peace breaks out
- 1774 - Britain leaves its settlement, but leave note saying it’s still theirs, don’t steal the garden furniture
- 1806 - Spain leave their settlement, leave note saying they’re also just popping out for a little while.
- 1816 - Argentina gains independence.
- 1833 - Britain creates fulltime settlement. No records exist of whether they managed to reclaim the garden furniture from previous settlement, or if the Spanish had half-inched it all.
The above is impressively more accurate than the usual timelines the two sides give for the islands. Now what we can clearly see from point 1-8 is it’s the usual colonial slap stick of “that’s my island”, “no it’s mine”. What we can also see is that, thanks to point 9, Britain’s got the rather effective point of possession being 9/10s of the law as well.
But the idea that there is somehow an absolutely clear ruling is just wrong.
Argentina were not the first settlers and geographical proximity is a ridiculous argument.
They have been in UK possession for nearly 200 years, the people are British, their culture is British, they want to remain British. There is nothing else to discuss. The UK offered to go the UN in 1947 and 1955 and Argentina declined, the UK submits to the right of self-determination. i.e. it is the islanders choice.
As I have said elsewhere. If Argentina are sensible they will stop their nonsensical claims of sovereignty, confirm their support of the islanders self-determination and seek to establish friendly trading and transport links.
There is substantial wealth down there and Argentina will lose out if they continue on their current path.
Who knows, if they do change their tune it may be that sometime in the future, after decades of friendly relationships the islanders end up deciding that they do want to be Argentinian. But it should never happen through aggression.
This, with the exception that our president is no more of an idiot or a bitch than any other politician, and considerably less than many.
I’m scratching my head trying to picture what an absolutely clear ruling would look like to you. Any hints?
The islands have been in the possession of the UK for 200 years, the inhabitants have been asked whether they wish to remain British and voted overwhelmingly that way, and we fought a war over the islands 30 years ago. How could the case possibly be any clearer? Possession is the entirety of the law, not 9/10ths of it.
Pointing to a few shacks that Spain (not Argentina) built over a century after the first British landings on the island and declaring the case is “all up in the air” is ridiculous. There’s a point when a claim to territory becomes to remote, and so tenuous, that it’s sophistry trying to pretend that the issue is not settled.
If I am not mistaken, there where some Argentinians shacks at some point too.
Cite: Luis Vernet - Wikipedia.
Now reading this I see that it differs from what I was taught at school here in Argentina (surprise!), so I’m not so sure there were Argentinian shacks, more like “Argentinian Approved shacks”
Yet again I wish there was a ‘like’ button on the SDMB. Superbly presented post Mr Kumquat.
Could the UK grant the Falklands independence and at the same time enter into a defence pact with the use of military bases?
They could…but it wouldn’t change much practically. The Falklands already have substantial internal autonomy, barring foreign affairs and defence. An independent Falklands with a close military pact with Britain would be the same under a different guise…although making it easier for Britain to retreat from the area (and probably a reason why Falklanders might not like the idea!)