Personally I see it more as repossessing. After all, the Brits have real issues giving back stolen lands…

Who did they steal them from Mark?

“Personally I see it more as repossessing.”

Lovely, that’s nice for you.

Fact of the matter is that if Argentina was so keen in abiding by the UN they wouldn’t have invaded. They’re only pretending to care about the UN because they lost that war.

I fail to see how they can “hand them back” to Argentina when they were never Argentina’s in the first place!

They could hand them back to the seals and penguins I suppose…

Look, from my point of view I don’t see the pony of Britain holding on to a few square kilometres thousands of miles away from Britain. The empire is dead, they have no need for outposts anymore.
Argentina should get those islands and he resources that come with it.

Argentina are only pushing the issue to disguise the troubling issues they have at home.

Any chance they’d take Northern Ireland instead?
Two birds with one stone and all that.

And what about the people who live there Mark?. Most of them are from families who have lived there for generations and wish to remain British. Do their opinions not count?

And who did they steal them from as you stated they were stolen originally?

“from my point of view”

And what about the point of view of the people who live there?

And why exactly do you think that Argentina should ‘get’ those islands?

Because they happen to be the nearest country on a continental landmass?

By that logic France should ‘get’ Ireland!!

Its all nice and well, but none of you have added a single argument why these islands should remain British.
As for the people, my native Netherlands has given either sovereignty or negotiated the annexation of smaller island into larger formal colonies, I suggest the Brits do he right thing, for a change.

“a single argument why these islands should remain British.”

Because the people who live there wish to remain British.

“my native Netherlands has given either sovereignty or negotiated the annexation of smaller island into larger formal colonies”

But not against the wishes of the inhabitants.

Well Mark, you seem to ignore the reasons that people have given just like you ignore some of the questions that people have asked you.

The reason that the islands should remain British (as a few people have stated) is because the people who live there wish to remain so. It’s that simple really. It is up to the people to decide.

The Falkland Islands are pretty unique in this regard. There was no indigenous population on the islands so there is no one to hand the islands back to. Therefore it was also impossible to steal them in the first place. However France, Britain and Spain did lay claim to the islands over different periods of history.

Actually, not. Most who wanted to stay Dutch, moved back to The Netherlands.
But the time of colonies is over, its 2013!

I don’t think the islanders see themselves as a colony Mark. They have quite an independent view of themselves but enjoy the military protection afforded to them by the UK. They have their own government and outside of the military bases there are more less self sufficient.

And the people on the Falklands – what do they want?

Yes Reg, they are so unique that Brittain still occupies 14 of them. They are nothing but leftover from a nation that once bullied the world.

“They are nothing but leftover from a nation that once bullied the world.”

Thank you, Mark, for excusing yourself from debate.

Mark would tell us that the Netherlands gave up its overseas territories willingly, well it tried to. In fact when the Indonesian territories first wanted to leave the Dutch Empire and declared independence (after they were occupied in WWII with scant assistance from their “home” nation) the Dutch spent more than four years re-establishing control militarily then endured guerilla uprisings before finally giving in to international pressure and recognising independence. With the Antilles and Surinam the road has been even more rocky with some Dutch Islands in the Caribbean still remaining as municipalities within the Netherlands. They tried to divest themselves of their colonies regardless of self determination and didn’t have a huge amount of joy.

Now they want the UK to do the same, regardless of the wishes of the inhabitants.

Damocles, you have a nasty way of turning events and ripping them out of context. You describe more then 60 years of events as it happened overnight.

Unlike the Brits, we learned from our past and don’t worship our conquerors, pillagers and rapist as heroes, but teach our children how wrong it was to do this. How we, as a nation, have a dark stain on our history.

“we, as a nation, have a dark stain on our history.”

You can teach yourselves self flagellation, doesn’t mean everyone has to.

The British empire wasn’t all wickedness and oppression as some people like to preach. I’m quite happy with certain elements of it.

Mark, respect to the Dutch for learning that colonialism is wrong. I agree with you. However, it’s fair to say the Falklands situation is somewhat unique. The Islands were not originally Argentinian, and there is no indigenous argentine population on the islands. Thus, i’d consider this one worthy of special treatment.

@Mark,

One word for you. Curaçao. The Netherlands hasn’t given all of its colonial possessions away. Come on even a foreigner like me living in the Netherlands knows the Dutch government still has remnants of their colonial past under their control. Bit of a joke ranting on about the British and trying to take the moral high ground when your country does the exact same thing.

Also the only nation to have ever maintained a consistent presence and claim to the Falklands is the UK. Spain had no right to hand over the Falklands to Argentina when there hasn’t been a Spanish settler on the islands in centuries while British settlers were still living there.

Not forgetting St. Maarten (see youtube for KLM jets nearly taking the heads off beachgoers as they approach the runway) and Aruba.

Sorry, but you are utterly mistaken: The Dutch Antilles are sovereign states that chose to stay with The Netherlands for certain aspects as Defence. No difference with the Isle of Man and Brittain. The only reason why there is a Dutch presence there, is because they wish it so.

To be slightly fairer to Mark than he deserves the Dutch have tried to divest themselves of their colonies and say “Oh God, we were horrible to you, please go away” but some of them just dug their heels in and said “Oh no, you ain’t getting away that easily.”

Damocles: the Dutch government, voluntary, supports its formal colonies both in infrastructure and economical support.
Even larger countries as Indonesia still receives a substatial aid package. There is no running, nor hiding from responsibility.

Mark, the Falkland Islanders run their own affairs and have their own government without outside interference from the UK – to all intents and purposes they are an independent nation, however they choose to maintain their relationship with the UK. Perhaps this is for reasons of defence, and after the 1982 Argentine invasion who can blame them?

Yes, Mark, because those former colonies didn’t want to go away quite yet.

Damocles, it is called doing the right thing. You should try it sometimes.

Is it still doing the right thing when you are forced into it?

You’ll also like to now point out where I haven’t done the right thing.

Perhaps you can also explain how the Dutch Antilles are different from the Falklands?

Mattoid, Is the answer “The Falklands were never used as hub for the slave trade?” is that right? Do I win some sort of prize?

First of all, the falkland are part of the British territories and ant sovereign. its that simple. Anyone who would’ve done even a but of research would’ve seen the difference.
We didn’t push colonies away, we managed their exit. Unlike desperate Brits who killed so many to to cling to the last scraps of the past.

Damocles, like many others you have no problem claiming knowledge of things you now nothing about. Just because you have an opinion, doesn’t give you the facts. And your lack of facts is showing clearly through emotive arguments. From previous arguments I’ve seen with you that will never stop you, after all, ignorance is always the loudest voice, but it is in principle dishonest.
On top of hat, making claims how the Brits weren’t ruthless, vicious murderers, rapist and pillagers shows that even your own history is a blank.

A guy kicking an empty can down the road told me there is oil around the falkland’s

“making claims how the Brits weren’t ruthless, vicious murderers, rapist and pillagers”

Where?

You don’t even know what you stated a day earlier? My god, that is worse then I thought. :-)

I shouldn’t need to be “making claims how the Brits weren’t ruthless, vicious murderers, rapist and pillagers”, anyone with an ounce of common sense would realise that the entire British Empire wasn’t murder, rape and pillage. The Vikings maybe.

What I stated was:

“The British empire wasn’t all wickedness and oppression as some people like to preach. I’m quite happy with certain elements of it.”

And I stand by that remark.

I think you’ve lost the plot Mark – on the one hand suggesting that the situation regarding the Isle of Man and the Dutch Antilles is the same, but on the other hand saying that the Falklands are somehow different!

Not so sure about that – its a considered strategy to distract from the dire domestic economic situation.

The south Falklands would be a very empty place then!

They tried that somewhere before and it went really really well! There was co operation between all people’s and everyone gracefully accepted this new decision that people voted for!!

Yes because that worked out really well for Ireland…

Oh wait it didn’t.

Funny man Figo, got a laugh of that anyway.

Sweet comment sweet!

Wow you sound just like Iran Paisley…

Hahahahaha……..”Iran Paisley”……my favorite typo this year…..

Dooowa Diddy

And of course that same oil wealth would never cross Cameron’s altruistic British mind.

No doubt the profits will be split evenly between the British people.

Damien, I shouldn’t think oil was a major consideration when they were settled in 1765!

1765..whale oil possibly. And probably fresh water on the Cape Horn route.

I doubt they were overly concerned as to whether they were inhabited either, given they had already proven their military technologies identified them as the superlative civilisation.

The French were settled there the year before, apparently.
Given the it was a Scots Irish Captain John McBride established the first permanent British settlement maybe we should stake a claim ourselves.

But then Cameron was still a bit of a preconception himself then, as was Maggot Hatcher
.

Actuall they were first settled in 1765, long before the French went anywhere near them.

Whilst these settlers eventually pulled out, the claim over the islands was maintained.

I could defer to your seniority and presume that you were a deckhand on Admiral Haughey’s famous expedition and so witnessed it all, and that the disputed claims of earlier maritime imperial ages are now resolved by your photo album.

But I’m inclined not to, as I figure its all a bottle of smoke, and you’re just having one of your moody periods again.

As I said elsewhere, maybe what we need is a slightly more rational way of carving up the human commonwealth of the earth’s resources than sticking flags in them and claiming absolute rights for our corporate tribes on the basis of who’s gunboat is bigger.

But I’m probable a few centuries premature with that one.

You don’t have to believe me Damien – it is well documented and you’ll find many sources, so there’s no need to go throwing your toys out of the pram with your sarcasm :-)

We’re in total agreement then.

No need to believe you. Ta.

I’ll retrieve my toys so.

The irony of an Argentinian of Spanish descent complaining about colonialism must be lost on you (and her)….

Either way, the British were the first humans to ever set foot on the islands (1690) and first settled on them in 1765, a full 50 years before Argentina even existed as a country!

The Dutch were the first to set foot on the islands! :)

@Dec
No, the Dutch are believed to have sighted them in 1600 but never landed on them.

Pretty sure we are all descended from somewhere or other

Ah, I see! But is there any proof that the islands had no inhabitants before the Brits arrived? Either way, it seems like to small an island to be cause for such a big issue!

The fact of the matter is, the inhabitants all consider themselves British. They have voted overwhelmingly by way of self determination that they wish to remain British. Argentina have zero claim over these islands. The chance that there might be some oil in the surrounding seas is what interests Argentina. I wonder Chris if…let me see..Chile owned the islands and Argentina were claiming them would you be so vocal?

@Dec
Native Patagonians were largely land dwellers. They are believed to have engaged in coastal seal hunts, but there is no evidence of true seafaring capability.

It is extremely unlikely that they could have crossed 400 miles of the wildest oceans on the planet, and no subsequent settlers ever reported seeing any signs of human habitation.

The facts are actually being omitted.. The main point to this timely sabre rattling is the recent discovery of an alarming amount of oil and natural gas within the national borders of the Islands which is not including the territory of Argentina.
This posturing will come to a head as there is too much of it (oil and gas) to simply back down from.
Cameron is certainly not cut from Thatcher cloth.. Britain will concede this one.

Story Teller you need to wake up from that dreamworld. HMS Dauntless on her own has the capability to wipe out the whole of the Argentine airforce before they would even reach the Falklands. Cameron may not be a Thatcher, he doesn’t need to be, any attack on The Falklands would unite all the parties in Westminster. As long as the Falklands wish to remain British, and it is highly unlikely the overwhelming majority of residents will change their minds, then Britain will ensure they remain so.

There was a war. Argentina lost.

There won’t be a war anytime soon. Argentina are incapable of taking the islands by force unlike in 1982. Can’t see the islanders being impressed with Ms Kirchner’s diplomatic efforts so I think things will remain as they are for may years to come.

@Reg – Agree, i cant see Argentina invading the islands as before if they have any sense. The Brits have a reinforced air base on the island with a detachment of sparkly new Eurofighters and a spanking new type 45 destroyer on station in the South Atlantic. Plus the first Astute class attack sub is in operation.

The Argies have not updated their military a whole lot since 1982.

However theres oil in the equation now so i wouldn’t rule anything out.

Blah blah blah!

*cough* Do your research… *cough*

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

But you dont accept wiki’s contention the French were in a year earlier?

Factoid…you’re at it again.

Tendentious. But Lizzie will be pleased.

Damien, you’ve resorted to warping posts and making personal attacks again, but for the sake of intelligent debate I’ll ignore that – it just seems to be your modus operandi so I don’t expect it to change.

I have no problem with the factual accuracy of anything that appears in the Wiki. If you take it (as you appear to have done) that when the original British settlers left the islands that any territorial claim became null and void, then the French would appear to have a legitimate claim over one of the islands. If you accept this though, you must also accept that the British have a legitimate claim over the other island.

You can’t have it both ways!

Therein lieth the difference.

I don’t want or require it either way. Ultimately they are both the same imperial might is right way you adhere to.

Damien,
You can also extend that argument to the Argentinians/Spanish, so who do you think the islands should belong to, apart from the people who have live there for the past 180 years?

We’re working in different mindframes.

I think the idea of ownership is a hominid delusion.
It is a social and legal cultural construct long past its usefulness.

I inhabit the earth. I have custody of certain resources which bring rights and responsibilities.
Ownership is for the possesor and the possessed.
I’ve never been encumbered with such baggage for too long.
I seee too much of the expanding damage created by such fixations. Sometimes it is amusing, mostly it is pitifully tragic.
Not since Methusela has anyone lived for 180 years. You are locked in a legal fiction.

So I take it you agree that Argentina has no claim over them then, given that you don’t think they can ‘own’ them, and no Argentinian has ever lived there?

Must you insist on your larcenous habit of taking what is not given?

Your wiki library indicates Argentinians, and others, have had habitations on the islands.

Bury the tiresome straw argumentation.
It is adolescently antagonistic.
I prefer more constructive interpretations of the forces at work.
I make no claims for either objectivity or omniscience. And if I did I would not be so deluded as to think it mattered a whit.

Lol, you crazy kids.. It was a reply to another comment that I screwed up. Kiss and make up.

I see your man Damien whipped out the thesaurus as soon as the argument was lost…

No Sean, I just happen to think a dictionary is a useful thing to have if you wish to refine crude thinking.

Stick to the TV, you wouldn’t like thinking(look it up, you’ll find it under ‘T’, but not in the RTE Guide).

Maybe people are not just knee-jerk anti-British any more. Kitchen has led Argentina down an economic cul de sac and like all wannabe dictators is playing a nationalist card to distract her opponents for power. Like FF did here in ROI for long enough, before everyone got sense and agreed that people should have the right to determine their own constitutional status at the ballot box. And in The Falklands there are no awkward borders or native Argentinians to complicate matters. Simples.

Maybe people are just looking at it with intelligent neutrality instead of being blinkered by anti-Britishness or anti-imperialism?

Maybe sweet ‘n’ simples, Colin.
May bee knot. Maybe complex and more ramified.

Because you are not knee-jerk pro-brit does not make you knee-jerk anti, Colin. I have worked all over both these islands quite happily. I’ve British family, of several generations, like many of us.I don’t mind them hanging their flags if they deliver some of the much vaunted justice. They could start with their own. Like ourselves.

There are bigger issues of resource claims and global empire balled in this issue than the knee-jerk pro-brit fanfare are allowing.

Soo..intelligent neutrality and pro-imperialism.

Explain that again for this slow learner.

We all know your infallible self has the monopoly on the intelligence bit: but kindly elucidate for us remedial cases.

Didn’t say you we’re knee jerk anti-British did I? Though the tone of the post you made about ‘loyal’ defenders suggested you thought those who support the right of the Falklanders to determine their constitutional destiny away from the barrel of an Argentine gun were some kind of Brit-lickers, and indeed might have said more about your views than you are now letting on.

If you have a point, why not just make it rather than tarnishing those with a Falkland sympathy with the worn out West Brit jibe.

The point is, Colin, there are too many closet unionists sabotaging this sorry attempt at a republican democracy ever since the leadership were judicially murdered to facilitate the recoup after the last attempt 100 years back to shake off the predations of over beyond.
And Britannia’s predations extended to Argentina and beyond, and still do. No better ‘Firm’ for putting in its puppets.

Try Eduardo Galiano’s ‘Open Veins of Latin America’ for a primer on the history.
I am one of a growing number of post-nationalists who grow impatient with the resurrected imperialism of the 21st century resource warriors. It grow too late to retain patience.
You could also usefully recapo our own history with Maurice Coaxley’s recent excellent ‘Ireland in the World Order’ which updates our own stroy so far quite succinctly and economically.

I think you just got your answer Colin…

Speakin of answers…you never did show me how you squared that circle of ..what was it again ‘principled neutrality’ and pro British imperialism, was it?

Funny the ones you never reply to, despite your eagerness to interject at the drop of a comma.

Or is it that you have a problem with either of the books in question?

I presume someone as authoritative as yourself has copies to hand.

Do give us a slightly more coherent critique than that last snide effort.

Or do you just resent information going out that might challenge your boss’s agenda?

Sorry Damien – I didn’t realise you’d asked me a question.

If being reasonably open-minded and objective about the situation and supporting the Islanders’ right to self-determination makes me, in your eyes, “pro-British imperialism” then perhaps you need to ask yourself the questions, as most of the thumbers seem to understand completely where I’m coming from.

Or perhaps you don’t think the human race should expand its range into any virgin lands it discovers (in which case we’d all still be knocking around in the Rift Valley)…

I’m not really sure what your line about “your Boss’s agenda” refers to – perhaps you can enlighten me?

Thumbs is it, mattoid?
Being in a minority, even of one, has never bothered me.

I try to keep the mind open and issues under review, and gather as much evidence as possible. I don’t adopt a fixed position until its unavoidable, especially when I’ve never visited the islands or studied them in depth. And when I do it remains revisable.
The imperialism remark referred to a contradictory statement you made somewhere earlier alongside neutrality which I asked you to explain but you never replied, not to that point. I think you did eventually throw in some flippant aside.
Need I root out the exact context?If it troubles you I’ll go search, but then if it troubles you go yourself.

Meantime, back at the thumbs, seeing as you are using it as a barometer of something.
Just above this frame I receive 21/4 rejection of the suggestion that nationalist super-tribalism and first-come-first-claim is maybe not the most civilised way to decide how the commonwealth of the earth should be managed for all its inhabitants in the 21st century.

Given that imperialisms seem to posit themselves on lands without peoples for peoples without land ‘virgin’ territory claims, and we are a whileen out of the Olduvai Gorge, am I wrong in assuming that if you thumbed at all , you gave it the red opposable digit?

Meantime ask the native Americans and Australians about virginity.

I’ll make it simple for you.
I’m not pro-imperialist.
I believe the Islanders have a right to self determination.
I believe the Argentinian claim over the Islands is dubious.
How’s that?

Did he nail you yet?

That post is just complete nonsense in so many ways – are you trying to make up your own version of history??

1) Argentina did not exist in the early 1500’s
2) Europeans had never visited the Falklands in the early 1500’s
3) The Falklands were uninhabited by anyone until the late 1700’s
4) It is not the Falkland Island – they are the Falkland Islands