And they know it.

I think the powers that be should listen to the people.

I don't care if they populated/colonized that little Island, it belongs to Argentina. The vote is irrelevent. They still haven't left the Island of Ireland, for crise sake, and that is not their territory either. Your Empire is over, Britain. Time to go home.
Now I will just sit back and wait for the DUers here to abuse me here for having a contrary opinion.....

It's an archipeligo of 778 islands, not one single island.

The islands are some 300 miles from Argentina, and so are nowhere near Argentine territorial waters.

The islands were uninhabited until colonised by the Brits. There is no evidence of any human occupation before the current residents. Can you say that about your country?

Argentina claims it is a "victim" of colonialism, despite still holding land it conquered before, during and after 1833, as well as the fact 96% of Argentines are white with barely trace amounts of native ancestry.

Argentina refuses to take the case to an actual court like the ICJ, as ICJ precedents and basic international law mean that they have absolutely no legal claim to the islands.

Now, if you want to take that as abuse...

I've never seen anyone make an argument for this other than, "because, that's why."

Who hasn't left Ireland? The British are quite clear that Ireland is not part of Britain. That's why the country of which Britain is a part is called The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

You're welcome to your own opinion, but you're not welcome to your own facts. Please get your facts straight before you try to use them to form an opinion.

automatically "belong" to the big country? Even when the islanders have had a different nationality continuously since 1833 and have no desire to change it?

Interesting theory.

the consent of the governed.

There are leftover bits though. The Falkland Islands (or Islas Malvinas) and Northern Ireland are only two parts of the "leftovers". Heck, if Scotland votes for independence next year, there won't be a Great Britain in the political sense. This would cause issues in Northern Ireland, as there won't be a Britain any more and in a generation or two the Island of Ireland would be politically united.

I disagree with you on the vote though. It has relevance because a locally organized ballot by the Islanders demonstrates the Islanders determination to be British. The principle of self-determination is what is used by the Parliament at Westminster these days. Any British Overseas Territory can have a vote and if they want to be independent of Great Britain, then the UK parliament won't stand in their way.

As for kicking the Brits out - that's 29% of the population. What about the 61% of the Falkland Islanders? Legally and politically they are citizens of the Falkland Islands *and* of Great Britain. Why would the majority (these 61% native people) who want to be British be forced to become Argentinian against their will?

Maybe we should apply the same principle to North America? Kick out those of European descent because North America belongs to the indigenous people. A lot of the Carolinas, Georgia, and parts of Tennessee and Virginia belong to the Cherokee Nation. If the people of the various First Nations vote to be independent of the United States or Canada, would this be permitted to proceed? Would the First Nations be able to claim their country back? The vast majority of people in the USA could be considered to be illegal immigrants.

Now if we can get the Cayman Islanders to become independent then things could get very interesting.

Let's save the guessing and point out that in all of naval history there are maybe ten places which have unusually high naval importance, including the Dardanelles, Gibraltar, the Carribean, Singapore, Mauritius, and the Falklands.

They are all important because all of them exist at a geographic constriction of sea trade routes. Whomever controls the naval base at those places controls the flow of the world's trade past that point.

Argentina wants the Falklands because, exactly as the French did with Mauritius and Madagascar, they can create a commercial "gateway" through which only approved commerce can safely pass.

Argentina wants the Falklands so that they can create a totally illegal, unwanted, and unnecessary toll-booth on the high seas. The islands are not and likely never will be profitable enough to cover the costs of such a base there, so the investment can only be justified if some return is realized.

Great Britain justifies its presence in the Falklands as one of the many points it uses to protect commerce, control piracy, and prevent local conflicts from damaging the global sea trade.

Argentina's rationale for keeping such a base would be entirely local, and they certainly would use it to disrupt trade, rather than to protect it. That is the only reason they would want it in the first place, and if they ever get it, they will have to disrupt trade in order to turn a dime on it. They are also guilty of having instigated a war of aggression to acquire the territory, and failed.

So double-fuck them.

You have an interesting take on this. If the Falklands are an important 'gateway' where are ships passing these islands now going? What are they carrying that is of such importance? I agree there is probably not much in these islands to be worthwhile - sheep, maybe?

But Argentina has plenty of sheep, cattle, whatever. Definitely not up to speed on the need for this conflict. Antartica is to the south and Africa to the east. I still consider Latin America to be completely self-sufficient, not in need of trade with either continent.

The Cape being the other the other half of the toll-booth. Oil tankers, large cargo ships, and large warships are generally too wide to fit into the archaic lock system of the Panama Canal, and must go past the Falklands just so the US Navy can transfer ships from fleet to fleet.

If the Argentinians gain control of the Falklands, and begin shutting down traffic past the Cape, it would disrupt everything from Indonesian oil shipments to US refineries in the Gulf of Mexico, US grain shipments to the west coasts of North and South America, most European and African trade with Chile, and on and on.

If you look at the map primarily colored in red on this page, you can see how important the Falklands and South Georgia are to world trade (the Argentinians did not overlook South Georgia in the Falklands war). The North Atlantic is nearly shaded in with sea-lanes, but the islands in question light up all by themselves in the South Atlantic, because they are such important ports of call on the southern routes.

From a purely selfish American perspective, which I tried to avoid until this post, giving the Falklands to Argentina would require the Americans to plan and be prepared to re-take those godforsaken islands before it can consolidate a fleet, or to consolidate eight thousand miles away from home waters at the Falklands themselves. From an international point of view, it's still a disaster because it allows one nation to control one of the most important sea-lanes in the southern hemisphere, exactly as Turkey controls all trade going into and out of the Black Sea.

Think of the nations that did, at one time, have near-total control over any one of the sea lanes I mentioned in the post above, and I'll show you a war or battle that was fought over that place at least once in the past hundred years: Singapore (Malacca Straight), Panama (canal), Gallipoli (Dardanelles), Egypt (Suez, three times), and of course the Falklands.

Give Argentina the Falklands and you have planted the weeds of war as surely as if you had dumped a sack of bird seed in your lawn.

I am a landlubber and don't think of all these extingencies. I can't imagine being a president or world leader and having to take all of these things into account that your first link and the map showed. I appreciate the education you provided.



In following your second link which I read, I found this page which was more complicated and shows other nations and groups within nations are always keeping their eyes on other lands and resources, and their power base. My personal life was very busy at the time this happened and this is instructive. About what was going on then, and what is going on right now.

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

close to the Falklands recently - I didn't google before replying but if I remember correctly they lie within the Falklands ambit. They are deep, of course, but not out of drilling range. That's why Argentina wants the Falklands

Why does this belong to one white European colonialist country more than the other? Argentina can complain about "colonialists" all they want.

were that it was up to the islanders to determine their own future.

There seems to be little doubt what the outcome of the referendum will be and Argentina can go whistle.

but that's fairly irrelevant.

The state the Argentine armed forces are in they would struggle to invade a sun lounger in Majorca at the moment. The air force is still flying pretty much the same planes they were in 1982, the army's starved of funding for fear of a military coup and the navy just lost one of their destroyers when it sank at its moorings.





Against this the Brits always have a modern guided missile destroyer (which caused the Argentinians to complain the Brits were militarising the islands - what possible reason could they have for that?), a 1200 man garrison, surface to air missiles and four Eurofighter Typhoons, which might not sound much but is more than enough to stop any attempted invasion.

It's worth looking into the matter ourselves, IMO.

I have no problem with the Falkland Islands remaining "British". The whole claim on the islands by Argentina is specious, IMO.

PB

"The matter of the Falklands is not quite so cut and dried as many think..."

Where precisely then, does the ambiguity lay?

...assume that control of the Falklands rightfully belongs to Argentina- if only out of propinquity. To continue the "natural" presumption, that the Argentinian claim on the Falklands represents a scrappy underdog trying to wrest back what has been stolen from them by a colonial superpower.

IMO, while that scenario tends to hold true in most situations, in the case of the Falklands, it's a lot more complex than that and Argentina's claim almost doesn't hold any water, IMO. By 1900, the book was long-closed on the matter. It's a gripe the Argentines have and that's fine: Almost every nation has gripes like this. But that piece of rock, 300+ miles out in the ocean from Argentina, has been under British control for one hundred and eighty years. For six generations the population of the Falklands has been overwhelmingly pro-British and identified with the British. Historically, the matter of the Falklands in the Argentine consciousness has a lot more to do with the motives of Argentinian politicians than any kind of rightful claim.

That's just my opinion. I hate British colonialism, I despise the British queen and the concept of British monarchy. But, as I see it, in this case, the Argentinians really don't have much of a leg to stand on. The matter is exacerbated by the smear campaigns both the British and Argentine governments are waging in attempt to gain ground on the matter.

PB

as an attempt to distract the people's attention from the awful economy there.

Under the dominion of the British government, they have access to first world level funding for their schools and hospitals and infrastructure.

Argentina couldn't offer that much in comparison.