Quote:
Originally Posted by Gribbers
Goods points...
I personally have no issue with them being completely independant from Britain, and in all honesty, still admire and respect the Argentinians, both from the 1980's and today 
The episode that interested me the most in the entire conflict was the potential SAS operation on Argentine soil...almost certainly suicidal...called off due to bad weather. |
yeah, the SAS involvement was interesting indeed, they still managed to make a great deal of sabotaging though, didn't they?
Quote:
Originally Posted by baronWastelan
Please tell why?
|
well one would expect the Mirage to be and Scooter to be at least on par with the Harrier, and whilst the Argentinians had limited range, the Royal Navy had to operate from aircraft carriers, with all the logistic constrains it carries. I dunno, many think that the Argentinians only had Pucaras, but there was more to it me thinks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kupsised
From a realistic perspective the argument over who should have control over the Falkland Islands is pretty simply solved by international law. Under the UN Charter all peoples have a right to self determination, whatever that may be (meaning it doesn't matter if it's independence, assimilation or anything in between). The people on the Falkland Islands have selfly determined that they wish to remain a protectorate of the United Kingdom and, thus, legally that's what they are, end of.
The Argentinian argument against this is based around territorial integrity, but this doesn't really stand as it's debatable whether the islands were ever part of Argentina in the first place, whether it was in Spains powers to give the islands to the Argentinians or whether the British stole the islands or merely took what was not being used. Since this isn't clear and it's not like we can call witnesses from the time in order to testify, logically the only legal basis to consider is that of self determination. The argument that the Falkland Islands are closer to Argentina is just rubbish because 'it's closer to us than them' doesn't stand up against codified international law. That's like taking your neighbours car because he parked it closer to your house than his, it just wouldn't stand up in a court of law.Of course there is a whole argument that the British placed what are now the Falklanders there, but that doesn't matter. They are not only the dominant party on the island, they are more or less the only party on the island. That is maybe a matter of ethical behaviour, but it is not a matter of law.
I'm seriously surprised I don't see the UN Charter cited in the news more often, or even from anyone arguing the British point of view. It is essetially the most important form of international law and it comes down pretty heavily in the favour of the Falklands remaining British as long as they want to.
EDIT: It's worth pointing out that I don't support either the British or the Argentine side in the argument, that's just as far as the problem goes in a purely legal context. Of course, we all know international law isn't always followed...
|
..I'm afraid you're missing the point here, nobody is arguing about the right of self-determination, it's about
how did the Brits end up on such small islands on the other side of the world..
Again, there isn't much of a "blurred story", it was a case of British settlers taking territory and kicking out Argentinian communities, so one could also argue that the British sovereignty is based on an illegal occupation.
I wouldn't concentrate on what people there want, as much as understanding whether they actually have any rights to decide for the island's territoriality or whether they've been squatting there for generations.
To use an example similar to yours: imagine your neighbour has a bungalow adjacent to your property, he decides he doesn't need it and gives it to you. You put some tools in there, but don't really use it that much. Some people from another state come around and see the bungalow, they squat in it, you don't make much of it for years (maybe cos you don't care, maybe cos you want to be nice to the foreigners or simply don't have the means to evict them) and they gradually kick all your stuff out and claim it as theirs, so that when you have enough of it and decide to claim it back, you can't, cos the squatters say it's theirs.
Or in a nutshell, think of what happened in Dale Farm...