The Falklands War plus 30

Historians have no idea who first set foot on the islands. In the16th century there were many unrecorded and recorded expeditions which could have easily landed on one of the islands. More than half a dozen explorers including Pedro Reinel, Pedro Vega, Ferdinand Camargo, Simon de Alcazaba, and Pedro Sarmiento de Gamboa all potentially saw and landed on the islands before the first Englishmen, John Davies and Richard Hawkins laid eyes on it. Sebald de Weert of the Netherlands is generally accepted to be the first one to sight the island. I would assume you're referring to John Strong who in 1690 landed on the islands and named them after Viscount Falkland....more than 150 years after the islands had shown up in European maps?

Argentina asserts it right to the islands through its former status a colony of Spain. Spain could technically claim the islands begining in 1494 with the treaty of Tordesillas. Britain also completely withdrew from the Islands in 1776.....before returning in the 1820s. My point is that the issue is far too complex and debatable to ever come to a definite conclusion. No historian can decisively say that Britain first set foot, claimed, and legally settled the islands.


I am more than aware of the referendum. Why did the British try several times in the 1960s and 1970s to give the islands to Argentina despite knowing the Falklanders wanted to remain part of Britain? By then the islands were of almost no value to the British and they had largely given into decolonization. Argentina had asserted its claim to the Falkands in its intial address to the UN in 1945 and continued to do so it UN decolonization committees. The Britsh government was more than willing to give the islands away but found out (to their surprise) that Parliment and the British public (with a lot of help from a Falklands lobby group) wanted to hold onto the islands.

You're getting quite defensive here, I suppose because you're British. I personally don't care either way. I don't think Argentina has any real right to the islands and if the people want to remain part of the UK, its fine by me. That doesn't mean I'll rewrite history. The idea that Briain has consistently held onto the islands because of the Falklanders wishes is false...its motivations have changed from the 18th century onwards...and as recently as the 70s had nothing to do with the wishes of the inhabitants.

 

The Falkland Islands were uninhabited before Europeans arrived. How is that paragraph on Native Americans relevant to the discussion?

 

To be honest, this is largely my view as well. Personally, I could not care less. It is a couple of small islands on the other side of the world, and of no interest to the US or myself. And as long as there is no actual fighting over them, I will continue to not care much.

And I also believe that the islands have the right to self-determination. However, I believe that it should be the actual islanders that were born there, not the huge number of those in the military that are stationed there. That is the kind of ballot box stuffing that to me would invalidate the results, no matter who won.

As far as the rest that others say, it is just so much coprolite. Argentina wanted these long before oil was thought to be there, so that is a non-issue. And tourism? Come on now, really? In 2010 that amounted to an entire $5 million pounds.

The city of Buenos Aires makes more money in a single day from tourism then the islands make in an entire year! That is like saying that the US would want to go to take over Belize to gain their tourism money. That is an idiotic claim in the extreme.

 

Mushroom, oil, natural gas & fish are a major interest. You don't want a place if it's useless. Argentina wanted Falkland Islands or las Islas Malvinas long before oil was found, but that doesn't change fact that they want Falkland Islands because of oil because oil brings profit. Argentina's allies suh as Venezuela could drill for oil there & thus the profits. Anything that gives a place a profit even if it's not much is of value. Oil & economic value to repeat is a large reason why Argentina wants them though they'll say it's about patriotism, national sovereignty.

 

I think that Great Britain would save money if it offered to buy out all the current residents of the Falklands- seriously give each of them a Million Dollars and an opportunity to immigrate to Australia or New Zealand(who would really prefer to live in the Falklands over New Zealand?) and they would probably be ahead in the long run.

But that will never happen.

 

The Argentine's went into it, somewhat "half-assed" for lack of a better word..in terms of air assets they outnumbered the UK 4:1, and never utilized their diesel submarines. The outcome was not a foregone conclusion by any means...better military leadership might have sent the Brits hightailing it for home.

Strategically, the island of Diego Garcia is more important to the U.S. and we currently have an agreement with the UK allowing the U.S. to use it for defense purposes through 2016. There's also a 20-year optional extension to 2036, and both the U.S. and UK must agree by December 2014 to allow for the extension.

 

With Puerto Rico, if Puerto Ricans want to become a state, continue being territory (which they've voted to do) or a sovereign nation, then let them vote & decide. But to repeat with Falkland Islands or las Islas Malvinas, Falkland Islanders born there are who should decide their sovereignty as it's their birthplace. If you're born in a place, then that's your house though your ancestors aren't the original inhabitants. Argentina & the U.K. must respect Falkland Islanders right to decide but Argentina with their allies Venezuela, etc. haven't respected this. Gibraltar originally belonged to Spain. As understood Gibraltarans in 2002 had a referendum to decide on joint sovereignty between the U.K. & Spain but Gibraltarans rejected this. Don't be surprised if in future Gibraltar becomes joint sovereignty or even a nation by itself. Gibraltarans ancestors are not original inhabitants but again, as they're born in Gibraltar that is their homeland by birth. Back to Falkland Islands, it would be wrong to evict Falkland Islanders from their birthplace because again, though their ancestors aren't original inhabitants, it's still their house by birthright. Same with Whites born in South Africa. No, the Whites ancestors are not the original inhabitants, but the Whites born in South Africa have = right to live there as do the Blacks living in South Africa by birthright. Resolve things peacefully without wars as wars are stupid. Once a nation has got territory or once some1 has got something, they don't like to just give it up. The U.K. doesn't want to just give up Gibraltar & Spain doesn't just want to give up Ceuta & Melilla.

 

Well it depends how much money it costs. People like George Galloway have talked about giving them £1 million to leave the Falklands and move to the UK. However £1 million isn't that much money anymore, you would be talking atleast £5-10 million per adult, but then what about the kids what choice do they have. So the whole idea is not a very good one.

 

I hope the UK government doesn't extend it, the people should be allowed back to their homes and their island. However from what I have heard all the wildlife on the island was killed off, so the island would need to be repopulated with animals. No doubt the UK would have to pay for it and pay the people from the island damages. Which I think is fair enough, it was a disgraceful thing for the government to do.

 

The British military didn't get a vote, the FIDF did.

 

Must repeat that once some1 has got something, they don't like to just give it up. British don't want to just give up Gibraltar though Gibraltar originally belonged to Spain. Spain doesn't want to just give up Ceuta & Melilla. & you don't want to give up lands you always have had. There has been talk of Scotland becoming an independent nation free from the U.K. & a 2014 referendum. In Spain, Cataluna's Artur Mas has been trying to get Catalonia to become a nation. Artur Mas isn't the 1st as since 1989 other Catalonians have tried, but Artur Mas has gone the farthest. There are Basque separatists such as terrorist group who have tried to separate el pais vasco & to a lesser extent, there are Gallegos who want Galicia to be a separate nation. Spain (King Don Juan Carlos, el presidente Mariano Rajoy) are against the idea of Spain losing Catalonia, el pais vasco & Galicia as Spain doesn't want to lose territory.

With Falkland Islands, must repeat that Falkland Islanders should decide their sovereignty as it's their birthplace but Argentina with their allies Venezuela, etc. haven't respected this. The U.K. has said that they're willing to let the Falkland Islands become an independent nation if this is what the Falkland Islanders want. Argentina wanted Falkland Islands or las Islas Malvinas long before oil was found, but that doesn't change fact that they want Falkland Islands because of oil because oil brings profit. Anything that gives a place a profit even if it's not much is of value. If Falkland Islands or las islas Malvinas were to become useless in that if oil & natural gas runs out, Argentina would lose interest. Nation wants land if the land has something they need or benefits them such as place to live, natural resources, etc. & Falkland Islands has alot to benefit Argentina economically if they had them.Oil & economic value to repeat is a large reason why Argentina wants them though they say it's about patriotism, national sovereignty.

 

Actually, you are so out of touch I don't even know where to begin. You really must make all of this stuff up, because you do not know what reality is.

In a non-binding referendum last year, the people of Puerto Rico took a vote on that very issue. And overwhelmingly, over 61% voted to become a state. Your claim, continue as a territory was 2nd, with 33% of the vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rican_status_referendum,_2012

Are there any more claims you want to make that I can destroy?

 

The 1713 Treaty of Utrecht states that Gibraltar is Britain's "in perpetuity" - i.e. forever. Britain can hold onto Gibraltar until Hell freezes over and there's nothing anyone can do about it. It's a contract which Spain signed.

What is not commonly known is that Gibraltar has hardly ever been Spanish. In fact, the British have owned it for longer than the Spanish have, and the Spanish got their hands on it because they captured it from someone else.

The first inhabitants were the Phoenicians and it became known as one of the Pillars of Hercules. Then the Carthaginians and Romans conquered the rock, followed by the Vandals. It later formed part of the Visigothic Kingdom of Hispania until the Islamic conquest of Iberia in 711 AD. It remained in Islamic hands until 1462 when it was captured by Juan Alonso de Guzmán, 1st Duke of Medina Sidonia. Twelve years later, in 1474, it was sold to a group of Jewish conversos from Cordova in exchange for maintaining the garrison of the town for two years, after which time they were expelled. In 1501 Gibraltar passed back to the Spanish Crown, and Isabella I of Castile issued a Royal Warrant granting Gibraltar the coat of arms that it still uses today. In 1704, during the War of the Spanish Succession, a combined Anglo-Dutch force captured the town of Gibraltar, leading to a permanent exodus of much of the existing population to the surrounding areas of the Campo de Gibraltar. Under the terms of the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht Gibraltar was ceded to Britain for eternity.

So Gibraltar had been Spanish for just 224 years, but has been British for exactly 300 years.

Gibraltar is part of the EU (but as a part of Britain rather than a member state in its own right) and Gibraltareans, who are British citizens, vote in elections for the European Parliament as part of the South West England constituency.

 

There is always a limit, you don't lose the whole navy on principle, there is a point where the price is too high, and it's better top pull back and lick wounds, and settle for second place.
If the Argentinians had more Exocet missiles, even as few as a dozen more, they could have demolished the British fleet, including the carriers.
The British were aware of how many Exocets the Argentinian military possessed, France had stopped shipping Exocets, British agents posing as buyers for Argentina had
offered huge amounts of cash to anyone who had Exocets and might conceivably sell them to Argentina.
If they had had 100 Exocets, it's doubtful the UK would have sent the fleet, there would have been political negotiations.

 

About that referendum:

Time to put a simple yes/no sort of question on the ballot during a general election and either make it a state or not.

BTW, this is a thread on the Falklands. There is one on PR here.

 

But, as its name implies, it's an overseas territory of Britain. Argentina invaded British soil in 1982.

No, the UK keeps the Falklands because that is what the Britons who inhabit the islands want.

The British Government has said time and time again that, should the islanders vote to become a completely independent nation or, even less likely, vote to become under Argentinean control, Britain will respect those wishes.

 

Most historians are of the opinion that John Davis was the first person to step foot on the islands.

English explorer 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 9th 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."

Spain, and Argentina, can do no such thing.

Even the argument that Argentina has a right to the Falklands through the Treaty of Tordesillas - which divided the newly discovered lands outside Europe between Portugal and Spain along a meridian 370 leagues west of the Cape Verde islands (off the west coast of Africa) - doesn't wash.

The Treaty of Tordesillas isn't worth the paper it was written on.

Regrettably (for Argentina, anyway) the Treaty of Tordesillas wasn’t recognised by most of the world then (none of the other European powers recognised it, hence why both Britain AND France claimed the Falklands) and by NONE now. Even the Papacy says the treaty was wrong then and of no account now.

The treaty only affects Spain and Portugal, so it isn’t relevant to the Falklands dispute as the UK isn’t a signatory of the treaty. If the UK was a signatory then it would effect the sovereignty of all former British colonies in the Americas, including countries like Canada.

So Argentina cannot even claim, as it has tried to do, the Falklands through the Treaty of Tordesillas.

As it says here:

The Treaty of Tordesillas quickly became obsolete in North America, and later in Asia and Africa, where it affected colonization. It was ignored by other European nations, and with the decline of Spanish and Portuguese power, the home countries were unable to hold many of their claims, much less expand them into poorly explored areas. Thus, with sufficient backing, it became possible for any European state to colonize open territories, or those weakly held by Lisbon or Madrid. The attitude towards the treaty that other governments had was expressed in a statement attributed to France's King Francis I (reigned 1515 - 1547), "Show me Adam's will!"

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

It withdrew in 1774 but never relinquished its claim to the islands. It even left behind a plaque asserting the claim.

The Spanish/"Argentinians" also left the islands in 1811.

Yes, they can. Britain legally settled the islands in 1765, before the Spanish turned up.

In the 1960s and 1970s many Falklanders had a good view of Argentina. Many sent their kids to Argentinian boarding schools and were keen on closer economic and political links with Argentina.

The Argies ruined all that when they invaded the islands in 1982. Since then the view of Argentina by the islandsers has been overwhelmingly negative and just under 100% of the islanders want nothing to do with Argentina.

And the Argentineans are great respecters of the islanders' wishes, aren't they? (I say with great sarcasm).

 

Yes but they didn't so I don't see why it matters. The British had exocets aswell and were able to defend against them in open water. The problem was our carriers couldn't carry and operate enough aircraft they really needed a 3rd carrier and at that time had the ships to defend it. Now the UK doesn't have enough ships to defend the carriers but we will have the capability to operate 100 aircraft from the QE class carriers. We need more defending ships everything from submarines, frigates, destroyer and we have no cruisers. We just lack numbers and armament the Royal Navy today is rubbish. I wish the useless former military people who caused this mess would shutup and stop being allowed on Andrew Neils programs. We could also do with a 3rd carrier for when one of the others is in refit.

 

We have an agreement with the Falklanders that we will defend them, these sorts of agreements are almost never broken.

So you just take everything the government says at face value? Look at the military history of the Falklands and you will see just why the UK wants to keep them and have a military base their. If they said that in public then all international suppport we move to Argentina and away from the Falklanders.

 

Oh I think it is completely politically unfeasible- but I think it is probably practical.

The average income of Falkland Islanders was approximately $32,000 a year. Almost half of the residents earn less than 15,000 pounds a year, and 12% reporting income of less than 5,000 pounds.

28% of all employment is from the Falklands Island Government, followed by agriculture, hospitality and tourism.

The average income in New Zealand was $44,985 in 2007-2008- that means- without any interest or income on investment- a person with a million dollars could live as well as the average New Zealander for almost 20 years- without working.

What choice would the kids have? The same choice kids have when parents decide to immigrate anywhere.

I happen to think that there are times when it make more sense to pay people to move- rather than to continue to pay for them to be able to stay.

But thats the UK problem- and I fully expect that no one will ever consider a practical solution.

 

Its not practical at all, when you take into account that the Falklanders don't want to leave and I also don't think its fair for parents to sell away the birth right of their children without them have a say or getting asmuch as their parents. Also compared to the rest of South America $32,000 is a huge amount and they have possible oil and gas reserves, so I wouldn't expect them to go on the cheap and Argentina would be paying them to leave not the UK.

The practical solution would be the Falklands becoming a independent nation recognised by the UN and Argentina, the Falklands and Argentina then have a negotiation on things they need to talk about. The UK keeps it's military base on the Falklands with a treaty with the Falklands. Argentina give up it's claim to South Georgia and Queen Elizabeth land. But of couse Argentina would never be practical like that.

I don't see why it always has to be the UK giving in and retreating as it has been for the past 70 years apart from the Falklands war and Belize.

 

Well lets see your reasons why its not practical- shall we?

If I was a sheep herding family in the Falklands making $30,000 a year, and someone offered me $2,000,000 and the opportunity to emmigrate to Australia, New Zealand or the U.K., I think I would be tempted.

But your objection has nothing to do with practical- it is your projection that the residents of the Falklands prefer a meager living there, over a much wealthier life in more hospitable areas. Maybe you are right- but I am betting most people would take the money- frankly I suspect you would be horrified at how many would.

Parents do this all the time. Why would this be any different other than it being the Falklands? Why is it any different than the Chinese parents who decide to migrate to America or the UK? Not as if we say- "but lets see what the kids say about this".

Nothing to do with practical.

Nothing to do with practical. $1,000,000 therefore would last even longer anywhere else in South America- those Falkland families could probably retire in Belize quite comfortably on that.

Do you really think that all the residents of the Falklands will ever become millionaires regardless of how much gas and oil is found?

Again- nothing to do with practical.

Well fine- that would be even more practical.

My point is that it would be cheaper for the UK to pay the Falklanders to leave than it is to pay to defend the Falklands- that is what I mean by practical.

Unless the Falklands pay the UK to protect it(maintain its base) that doesn't seem like a practical solution for the UK.

Frankly I don't care what the UK does. I consider the UK to be an ally, and the UK will decide to do what it does. You and your country can spend your entire budget on defending the Falklands and that is okay with me.

But it would likely be more 'practical' to just bribe the Falklanders to emigrate.

 

But the UK would have to build another military base on South Georgia, at some cost to support Queen Elizabeth land. Then South Georgia is claimed by Argentina so what if they start going on about that. This is a case where you give an inch they will take the whole thing. I am sure some people in the UK government want to cut the £70 million a year it costs to defend the Falklands from the budget, but really your going to buy off 2,000-3,000 people for £1 million each that's £2-3 billion. Then you need to take into account training that is done of the Falklands by the military, doing that in Canada or somewhere else would cost more money. Also the Falklands government has offered to pay the UK's costs for defending the Falklands if and when the oil money starts coming in. So I don't think your argument is practical from a UK tax payers point of view and Argentina would never pay £2-3 billion to the Falklanders to leave as doing so means they have to talk to the Falklands government which they don't recognise. So please get this dumb idea out your head.

If the US doesn't care about the UK why did your government try and stop the UK from cutting defence spending? Why is your government trying to keep the UK in the EU? Why did Obama ask Cameron to release some of the UK's oil reserves to help cut the price of fuel? I can go on and on, so stop acting like the UK is just a small island off the north west coast of Europe that nobody should care about, when really you care about it a whole lot and what part it has in the world.

 

Huh? Seriously? The UK is welcome to have as large a military budget as you want- seriously its your money- throw it away anyway you want to. Defend "Queen Elizabeth land", defend South Georgia- the United States of course is busy doing much that sort of thing.

I happen to think your money would be much better spent elsewhere, but you can put an armored division on South Georgia if you want.

I said $1,000,000 each- so roughly £650,000 for each adult- lets call it 16 and older- or roughly 2505 people- that totals £1.6 billion, so £70 million would be paid over 23.2 years.

William- you start thread after thread about imaginary British navies- what I suggested was a rational option when it comes to the Falklands- and one I said from the beginning that would never happen because of politics.

William- did I ever say that the U.S. doesn't care about the U.K.? I said the UK was our ally. I said I don't care if the UK chooses to waste money on a bloated and unnecessary military budget. The UK is welcome to spend every single tax farthing on building aircraft carriers and it would be okay with me- I wouldn't think it a good idea- but the PM hasn't asked me lately anyways.

When did I ever say or imply either William?

 

And I bet many would take the money and remain there. Imagine how far $2 million would last you in an Argentine controlled Falklands.