Falklands Islands

[panamania79 2]

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.

EXACTLY ! They really need to give it back to Argentina !

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I personally couldn't care less whether the UK holds onto the islands or not.

However... we're not talking a vacant bunch of rocks here, but a fairly sizeable community of people. The vast majority of that population is of British citizenship and presumably wants to remain so. Those people deserve to be represented and have their interests put before any political agenda.

Simple fairness (i.e. not kicking people out of homes they have occupied for generations) should always trump flag-waving nationalist agendas.

[Welshcookie 17]

I personally couldn't care less whether the UK holds onto the islands or not.

However... we're not talking a vacant bunch of rocks here, but a fairly sizeable community of people. The vast majority of that population is of British citizenship and presumably wants to remain so. Those people deserve to be represented and have their interests put before any political agenda.

Simple fairness (i.e. not kicking people out of homes they have occupied for generations) should always trump flag-waving nationalist agendas.

[JVKn'CVO 11]

I personally couldn't care less whether the UK holds onto the islands or not.

However... we're not talking a vacant bunch of rocks here, but a fairly sizeable community of people. The vast majority of that population is of British citizenship and presumably wants to remain so. Those people deserve to be represented and have their interests put before any political agenda.

Simple fairness (i.e. not kicking people out of homes they have occupied for generations) should always trump flag-waving nationalist agendas.

What about the interest of the 33 million Argentinians, robbed of what rightfully and historically belongs to Argentina? What about the safety of the whole country, threatened by the presence of military RIGHT IN THEIR MARITIME SOIL ? They don't count?? Ah, right, they don't because it's all about your world bulling.

And if it is really about the people living there...WHY IS THE UK REQUESTING MORE LAND TO THE UN ALL THE TIME? (LAST TIME IT WAS 2007...LAST YEAR!), AND WHY DO YOU USE IT TO REQUEST PART OF THE ANTARTICA? IF IT IS JUST ABOUT THE PEOPLE, YOU WOULD NOT NEED THOSE THINGS.

Open your eyes to what your government is REALLY doing with that land, and their REAL purpose behind it.

(Nothing against you number 6, just venting)

Saludos,

Caro

[JVKn'CVO 11]

Wikipedia - Falklands

22 September 2007, The Guardian reported the UK government was preparing to stake new claims on the sea floor around the Falklands and other UK remote island possessions, in order to exploit natural resources that may be present.[25] In October 2007, a British spokeswoman confirmed that Britain intended to submit a claim[26] to the UN to extend seabed territory around the Falklands and South Georgia, in advance of the expiry of the deadline

The islands claim a territorial sea of 12 nautical miles (22 km) and an exclusive fishing zone of 200 nautical miles (370 km), which has been a source of disagreement with Argentina.

Sovereignity of the Falklands

The Argentine government has maintained a claim over the Falkland Islands since 1833, and renewed it for the latest time in April 2007. [30] Supporters of the Argentine position make the following claims:

Sovereignty of the islands was transferred to Argentina from Spain upon independence, a principle known as uti possidetis juris.

Spain never renounced sovereignty over the islands, even when a British settlement existed.

Great Britain abandoned its settlement in 1776, and formally renounced sovereignty in the Nootka Sound Convention. Argentina has always claimed the Falklands, and never renounced its claim.

The British return in 1833 (classified as an invasion by Argentina) was illegal under international law, and this has been noted and protested by Argentina. [2]

The islands are located on the continental shelf facing Argentina, which would give them a claim, as stated in the 1958 UN Convention on the Continental Shelf.§[citation needed]

Self-determination principles are not applicable since the current inhabitants are not aboriginal and were brought to replace the Argentine population expelled by the British invasion of 1833.

Great Britain was looking to extend its territories in Americas as shown with the British invasions of the Río de la Plata years earlier.

§ Although a signatory to the 1958 convention, Argentina never ratified the convention[31]. The 1958 Convention was superseded by 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, ratified by Argentina in 1995.

[JVKn'CVO 11]

For those that don't know where the Falklands are

Saludos,

Caro

[Steve Y Jessica 1]

Thank you Caro! I was wondering when you would find this.

[JVKn'CVO 11]

Thank you Caro! I was wondering when you would find this.

I saw it when it was initially posted, but I was trying not to get involved because I get so mad

Saludos,

Caro

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I personally couldn't care less whether the UK holds onto the islands or not.

However... we're not talking a vacant bunch of rocks here, but a fairly sizeable community of people. The vast majority of that population is of British citizenship and presumably wants to remain so. Those people deserve to be represented and have their interests put before any political agenda.

Simple fairness (i.e. not kicking people out of homes they have occupied for generations) should always trump flag-waving nationalist agendas.

What about the interest of the 33 million Argentinians, robbed of what rightfully and historically belongs to Argentina? What about the safety of the whole country, threatened by the presence of military RIGHT IN THEIR MARITIME SOIL ? They don't count?? Ah, right, they don't because it's all about your world bulling.

And if it is really about the people living there...WHY IS THE UK REQUESTING MORE LAND TO THE UN ALL THE TIME? (LAST TIME IT WAS 2007...LAST YEAR!), AND WHY DO YOU USE IT TO REQUEST PART OF THE ANTARTICA? IF IT IS JUST ABOUT THE PEOPLE, YOU WOULD NOT NEED THOSE THINGS.

Open your eyes to what your government is REALLY doing with that land, and their REAL purpose behind it.

(Nothing against you number 6, just venting)

Saludos,

Caro

Vent away. As I said my objection to the Argentinian claim is purely to do with preserving the interests and wishes of the people who live there and not nationalist agendas.

This situation could probably be resolved in such a way that the British residents retain the islands (or parts of them) but that the UK removes or scales down its military presence. Of course given that the Argentinians went to war in 1982 (over a 200 year old dispute) doesn't exactly inspire confidence.

[Ban Hammer 13,333]

we all remember how well things worked out the last time when argentina exerted their claim.....

Edited August 2, 2008 by charles!

[JVKn'CVO 11]

Thank you for posting the picture of the ARA Manuel Belgrano Charles. For those that don't know, the ship was OUTSIDE war perimeters and was actually sailing AWAY from the islands. 323 people were killed.

In memory of the lives lost in Malvinas

Saludos,

Caro

Edited August 2, 2008 by JVKn'CVO

[Ban Hammer 13,333]

Thank you for posting the picture of the ARA Manuel Belgrano Charles. For those that don't know, the ship was OUTSIDE war perimeters and was actually sailing AWAY from the islands. 323 people were killed.

In memory of the lives lost in Malvinas

Saludos,

Caro

Controversy over the sinking

There was some controversy surrounding the sinking of the ARA General Belgrano. The sinking also became a cause célèbre for anti-war campaigners (such as Labour MP Tam Dalyell). Part of the reason for the controversy was that early reports claimed or suggested that approximately 1,000 Argentine sailors had been killed in the sinking.

[edit] Legal situation

The Belgrano was sunk outside the 200-nautical-mile (370 km) total exclusion zone around the Falklands. However, exclusion zones are historically declared for the benefit of neutral vessels; during war, under international law, the heading and location of a belligerent naval vessel has no bearing on its status. In addition, the captain of the Belgrano, Hector Bonzo, has testified that the attack was legitimate[7] (as did the Argentine government in 1994).[8][9][10][11]

link

[JVKn'CVO 11]

Thank you for posting the picture of the ARA Manuel Belgrano Charles. For those that don't know, the ship was OUTSIDE war perimeters and was actually sailing AWAY from the islands. 323 people were killed.

In memory of the lives lost in Malvinas

Saludos,

Caro

Controversy over the sinking

There was some controversy surrounding the sinking of the ARA General Belgrano. The sinking also became a cause célèbre for anti-war campaigners (such as Labour MP Tam Dalyell). Part of the reason for the controversy was that early reports claimed or suggested that approximately 1,000 Argentine sailors had been killed in the sinking.

[edit] Legal situation

The Belgrano was sunk outside the 200-nautical-mile (370 km) total exclusion zone around the Falklands. However, exclusion zones are historically declared for the benefit of neutral vessels; during war, under international law, the heading and location of a belligerent naval vessel has no bearing on its status. In addition, the captain of the Belgrano, Hector Bonzo, has testified that the attack was legitimate[7] (as did the Argentine government in 1994).[8][9][10][11]

link

Just because a lousy president (1994-M*enem...We believe it is jinx to name him) made concessions because he was desperately seeking international approval to keep the money flow does not make it true. The ship was OUTSIDE the 200 mile (320 km) exclusion zone, and sailing AWAY from the islands. And it's all right there in the article you linked.

Saludos,

Caro

[Ban Hammer 13,333]

Thank you for posting the picture of the ARA Manuel Belgrano Charles. For those that don't know, the ship was OUTSIDE war perimeters and was actually sailing AWAY from the islands. 323 people were killed.

In memory of the lives lost in Malvinas

Saludos,

Caro

Controversy over the sinking

There was some controversy surrounding the sinking of the ARA General Belgrano. The sinking also became a cause célèbre for anti-war campaigners (such as Labour MP Tam Dalyell). Part of the reason for the controversy was that early reports claimed or suggested that approximately 1,000 Argentine sailors had been killed in the sinking.

[edit] Legal situation

The Belgrano was sunk outside the 200-nautical-mile (370 km) total exclusion zone around the Falklands. However, exclusion zones are historically declared for the benefit of neutral vessels; during war, under international law, the heading and location of a belligerent naval vessel has no bearing on its status. In addition, the captain of the Belgrano, Hector Bonzo, has testified that the attack was legitimate[7] (as did the Argentine government in 1994).[8][9][10][11]

link

Just because a lousy president (1994-M*enem...We believe it is jinx to name him) made concessions because he was desperately seeking international approval to keep the money flow does not make it true. The ship was OUTSIDE the 200 mile (320 km) exclusion zone, and sailing AWAY from the islands. And it's all right there in the article you linked.

Saludos,

Caro

there's also this little gem in that same article..........

In addition, the captain of the Belgrano, Hector Bonzo, has testified that the attack was legitimate[7] (as did the Argentine government in 1994).[8][9][10][11]

[JVKn'CVO 11]

Oh, and don't forget, the same president that said that was so bad that he is the direct cause of the 2001 Argentina crisis.

Good thing the last and current presidents have the courage to say things the way they are

Saludos,

Caro

Edited August 2, 2008 by JVKn'CVO