The Falklands or Las Malvinas - YOU decide....

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Queso, Feb 25, 2010.

?

Who should have the islands?

  1. Argentina - the isles are in their waters and their blood

    11 vote(s)
    18.6%
  2. UK - the islanders may be British imports, but those isles are now their home

    39 vote(s)
    66.1%
  3. I'm with the USA - officially neutral

    9 vote(s)
    15.3%
  1. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #1
    Nothing more than a straw poll here. Those of you outside of South America or the UK might not be getting this story, but Argentina is taking its case for sovereignty over the disputed Falkland Islands/Islas Malvinas to the UN. At a recent "everyone except the US and Canada" summit of American nations all 32 members present backed the Argentine side of the debate.

    The dispute, which has been going on for a couple of centuries or so, has been brought back to the agenda after a number of oil companies were granted exploration rights by the islands' legistature in Port Stanley (Puerto Argentine).

    So, bearing in mind the history, do you think that the islands should "revert" back to Argentina who never really had a permanent settlement on them anyway, or remain a hangover of a long-gone colonial past and stay with the 14000km away UK?
     
  2. splitpea macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2009
    Location:
    Among the starlings
    #2
    Why don't the residents of the islands get to decide? Heck, maybe they'd prefer independence over belonging to either country.
     
  3. Queso thread starter macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #3
    Argentina's argument is that the 3000 or so residents shouldn't really be there anyway, since they were moved there as a British colonisation effort in the 1840s after Argentina claimed the islands as its own. Britain of course counters this argument by pointing to a plaque that one of its ships left on West Falkland several decades prior to Argentina's independence from Spain, claiming the islands for Britain.
     
  4. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #4
    Penguin reserve on land,marine reserve for two hundred miles surrounding.Bring the Kelpers to the U.K. and make them suffer like the rest of us.
     
  5. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
  6. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #6
    My view is that the Argentinians are only bringing this dispute to distract from problems at home :(.

    I think they like being British, and there being a possibility of oil there is something that has been known for a while.
     
  7. Queso thread starter macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #7
    It's more than just about the islands themselves. Due to international law whoever controls them and the "dependent territories"* of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands has the resource rights to huge swathes of the South Atlantic. Even without the oil possibility that represents a massive amount of cash.



    *South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands are currently uninhabited, meaning the UK cannot legally enforce maritime restrictions.
     
  8. iBlue macrumors Core

    iBlue

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Location:
    London, England
    #8
    I don't really know what's right or wrong here. I feel for the islanders but who is to say they wouldn't be drilling for oil there themselves if they'd known or had the ability. It's still a part of the British empire so I'm guessing it's legally Britain's to pillage, rightly or wrongly. I admit I don't know all that much about this story and the history of it though.

    I think it's rather dirty of America to decide to be neutral on this when America was content to bring the British into the BS oil wars and then not back Britain on the very same sticky subject.
     
  9. Queso thread starter macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #9
    it's the Falkland Island's government that has brought in the oil companies and who will gain the oil receipts from any profits generated. However, there has been considerable bias towards companies from the Anglosphere in who is being permitted to carry out exploration. All but one are British, the other being Australia's BHP Billiton. The argument from Buenos Aires is that the islands' legislature is illegitimate and therefore does not have the authority to issue licenses for the exploitation of Argentine resources, and that it is only the presence of 1000 British troops, an RAF base and some Royal Navy ships that maintains the illegitimate government's control over the territory.
     
  10. djellison macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Location:
    Pasadena CA
    #10
    Take a referendum of those that actually live there.
     
  11. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #11
    The three thousand people or the 500,000 sheep?
     
  12. IntheNet macrumors regular

    IntheNet

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    #12
    +1

    I recall with humor, I think it was April 1982, when Maggie Thatcher was prosecuting the war therein, I use to listen with anticipation and laugh with abandon when news announcers would refer to it as the "Falklands War," or "that Falklands War," putting deliberate emphasis upon the mispronunciation, which sounded singularly appropriate but at the time horribly offensive... the idea of the Argentinians and the Brits were actually battling it out over an island, with the sinking of the Belgrano and the HMS Sheffield has the air of a Premier League pitch scrimmage rather than a violent war to outside observers!
     
  13. Queso thread starter macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #13
    See post #7. It's more about control of maritime resources than some forsaken windswept sheep pasture.
     
  14. MacBoobsPro macrumors 603

    MacBoobsPro

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    #14
    How did Britain gain control of the islands in the first place? If it was legal war and they won then they are Britains.
     
  15. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #15
    +1. I don't know enough to decide either way (I voted neutral in the poll) but I think the best option is to let the people who live there decide. Argentina, Britain or neither?
     
  16. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #16
  17. Queso thread starter macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #17
    It goes something like this.

    They were originally a French colony, with Britain claiming the uninhabited West Falkland. Then the French left and the Spanish moved into Port Louis, the old French settlement on East Falkland. However, when the River Plate colonies (the forerunners of Uruguay, Bolivia and Argentina) revolted from Spain the Spanish left. The next few years saw a number of different temporary settlements set up by whalers and the like, before an Argentine colony was commissioned. Unfortunately that eventually descended into piracy and they got turfed out by the US Navy, at which point Britain decided to press their earlier claim and founded Stanley, Darwin and Fitzroy on East Falkland. The islands have been administered as a British territory ever since, either directly or as a British Overseas Territory as today.

    Prior to the French there were no inhabitants.
     
  18. Queso thread starter macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
  19. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
    #19
    Best thing,hopefully the others will fail as well.
     
  20. TechieJustin macrumors 6502

    TechieJustin

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2009
    Location:
    Pennsylvania, USA
    #20

    Sounds like things were pretty chaotic until the British came in. I'd say they're British.
     
  21. Synchromesh macrumors 6502a

    Synchromesh

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Location:
    SF
    #21
    I heard of the 1982 Falklands War. Out of the 2 nations I dislike Argentina more because of Peron. So routing for UK.
     
  22. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #22
    Peron's been dead since 1974, so it seems like a rather strange reason to still dislike a country.
     
  23. firestarter macrumors 603

    firestarter

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Location:
    Green and pleasant land
    #23
    I say give Argentina back to the Incas and send the Hispanics back to Spain!
     
  24. Denarius macrumors 6502a

    Denarius

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    Location:
    Gironde, France
    #24
    Just give the residents a referendum with three choices.
    • Continue as a part of Britain
    • Become part of Argentina
    • Be independent
    Formal self-determination will put an end to it.
     
  25. codymac, Jun 18, 2011
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2011

    codymac macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    #25
    The US (*cough* Puerto Rico) should remain neutral.
     

Share This Page