Falklands Islands

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

This is an interesting account of a trip there:

http://www.gyford.com/phil/writing/2006/01...p_to_the_fa.php

[almaty 19]

Do you mean the Malvinas?

Yes, thats a different name for the same place.

It's the actual name.

Falklands is the imperialistic oppressor name.

Malvinas, FTW!

and they belong to Argentina not the old colonial power

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Do you mean the Malvinas?

Yes, thats a different name for the same place.

It's the actual name.

Falklands is the imperialistic oppressor name.

Malvinas, FTW!

and they belong to Argentina not the old colonial power

Exactly!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The history there is pretty complicated - but the fact that no ####### was living there when the Brits took it over (after the Americans destroyed the Argentine colony which was essentially being used as a pirate base) makes the Argentinians claim to sovereignty rather questionable.

As to what its like, two words: Windswept. Sheep.

Edited August 1, 2008 by Number 6

[Sinergy 3]

A.J we cant leave you alone for even 5 mins!!

[Saddle Bronc 124]

I guess he wants to see if he still "has it" (that is nonredundancy at starting flame-wars)

[Steve Y Jessica 1]

The history there is pretty complicated - but the fact that no ####### was living there when the Brits took it over (after the Americans destroyed the Argentine colony which was essentially being used as a pirate base) makes the Argentinians claim to sovereignty rather questionable.

As to what its like, two words: Windswept. Sheep.

OK, then why doesn't Argentina just go over to England and find an area that no one is living and take that over and claim it as their own.

[Ban Hammer 13,619]

The history there is pretty complicated - but the fact that no ####### was living there when the Brits took it over (after the Americans destroyed the Argentine colony which was essentially being used as a pirate base) makes the Argentinians claim to sovereignty rather questionable.

As to what its like, two words: Windswept. Sheep.

OK, then why doesn't Argentina just go over to England and find an area that no one is living and take that over and claim it as their own.

no navy to get there?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The history there is pretty complicated - but the fact that no ####### was living there when the Brits took it over (after the Americans destroyed the Argentine colony which was essentially being used as a pirate base) makes the Argentinians claim to sovereignty rather questionable.

As to what its like, two words: Windswept. Sheep.

OK, then why doesn't Argentina just go over to England and find an area that no one is living and take that over and claim it as their own.

It doesn't really work like that though does it - established territorial borders and all that.

If you really want to be technical about the history the French founded the first settlement there - and the Spanish basically bought the claim from them subsequent to the British claim to sovereignty (all before the founding of the Argentine Republic).

[Welshcookie 17]

Almaty and A.J.....STFU you pair of Persian shoes!!!!

[Ban Hammer 13,619]

Almaty and A.J.....STFU you pair of Persian shoes!!!!

i knew you'd be along to set them straight.

[Welshcookie 17]

Almaty and A.J.....STFU you pair of Persian shoes!!!!

i knew you'd be along to set them straight.

Damn right!

[pedroh 21]

Do you mean the Malvinas?

That name though is only used in Argentina.

nope.. all latin-americans know them as the Malvinas... 4life

[Steve Y Jessica 1]

The history there is pretty complicated - but the fact that no ####### was living there when the Brits took it over (after the Americans destroyed the Argentine colony which was essentially being used as a pirate base) makes the Argentinians claim to sovereignty rather questionable.

As to what its like, two words: Windswept. Sheep.

OK, then why doesn't Argentina just go over to England and find an area that no one is living and take that over and claim it as their own.

It doesn't really work like that though does it - established territorial borders and all that.

If you really want to be technical about the history the French founded the first settlement there - and the Spanish basically bought the claim from them subsequent to the British claim to sovereignty (all before the founding of the Argentine Republic).

And none of that seemed to matter when the Americas were "Discovered". Everyone just took claim to stuff, it did not matter who was living there already.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Not to put too finer point on it - but the native americans (north and south) were weak and couldn't prevent the expansion of a technologically advanced Europe, and subsequently they lost everything. That hasn't prevented them from getting some redress for past injustices (and there is regret for this in our society - as forced relocation and genocide isn't something that is justifiable under an enlightened liberal value system) but obviously nothing can put things back the way they were.

The subsequent reality of 200 years of history and the formation of the United States has colored what is possible in terms of viable outcomes. In other words noone is arguing that the descendents of European settlers ####### off and give everything back to the Native Americans - it just isn't practical (or fair to be honest). Possession is as they say, 9/10 of the law.

If you're suggesting that modern-day Argentina could justify forcibly removing a group of British citizens from territory that they have lived in for generations by making comparisons to the experience of the Native Americans, I think you need a sense of perspective.

In the case of The Falklands the British did not mass-murder and forcibly eject thousands of people to their detriment. Their claim on the territory goes back to the beginning of the regions history - when they never ceded their sovereignty of the islands.

The history there is pretty complicated - but the fact that no ####### was living there when the Brits took it over (after the Americans destroyed the Argentine colony which was essentially being used as a pirate base) makes the Argentinians claim to sovereignty rather questionable.

As to what its like, two words: Windswept. Sheep.

OK, then why doesn't Argentina just go over to England and find an area that no one is living and take that over and claim it as their own.

It doesn't really work like that though does it - established territorial borders and all that.

If you really want to be technical about the history the French founded the first settlement there - and the Spanish basically bought the claim from them subsequent to the British claim to sovereignty (all before the founding of the Argentine Republic).

And none of that seemed to matter when the Americas were "Discovered". Everyone just took claim to stuff, it did not matter who was living there already.