Now the Aussies are throwing their boomerangs out of the pram ! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-35922858
storm in a didgeridoo ; obviously he discovered it, cause he never knew it existed in the first place
I wasn't necessarily referring to the Falklands in this instance, just the general use of technicalities to justify colonial expansion, e.g. "Ireland wasn't a united territory at the time". This argument is used extensively in debates about the status of the Falklands, just minus the 'bloody' (although the Argentine flag was replaced with the British flag in the early 1800s under threat of violence and bloodshed). AS if to prove my point - the Australians this morning are beeling over a university stating that what took place there was an invasion, instead of the apparently more acceptable term "planted". You say tomato .... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-35922858
Britain claimed the Falkland Islands in 1765, establishing a settlement at Port Egmont on Saunders Island, prior to any Spanish claim to the Islands. In January 1833, following the reassertion of British administration of the Islands, José María Pinedo, commander of the schooner Sarandí, an Argentine warship, prepared a report which shows that only the 26-man garrison were ordered to leave the Falkland Islands, along with 11 women and 8 children who had accompanied them. The garrison itself had been established for less than three months. Pinedo’s report details how Captain Onslow of HMS Clio ordered ‘...those inhabitants who freely wished it should remain’ and indeed many did so. Argentine residents who remained in the Islands included Antonina Roxa (a renowned gaucho and businesswoman who died in the Falklands in 1869) and Antonio Rivero. No violence or bloodshed. No threats.
Ferfuxake, my point was about the technicalities used. The Falklands was one of the rare events where blood wasn't spilled. However since you are going down this path, a few things about your post - The French established the first settlement on the islands (las Malvinas comes from the French term); - The British upped sticks pretty soon after their first settlement as they were skint from the American War of Independence. Therefore can be considered to have renounced any claim to the Islands; - The Argenitinians (or United Provinces of South America which was based in Buenos Aires - this is where the Argentina didn't exist technicality creeps in) claimed them in the meantime; - 1830 or so the British decided it was time to go back, from wikipedia "Captain James Onslow, of the brig-sloop HMS Clio, arrived at Vernet's settlement at Port Louis to request that the flag of the United Provinces of the River Plate be replaced with the British one, and for the administration to leave the islands. While Major José María Pinedo, commander of the schooner Sarandí, wanted to resist, his numerical disadvantage was obvious, particularly as a large number of his crew were British mercenaries who were unwilling to fight their own countrymen. Such a situation was not unusual in the newly independent states in Latin America, where land forces were strong, but navies were frequently quite undermanned. " So in actual fact, threats of force WERE used in order to reclaim the islands
The Argenitinians (or United Provinces of South America which was based in Buenos Aires - this is where the Argentina didn't exist technicality creeps in) claimed them in the meantime. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Thanks
Dev schooling the West Brits again just as per the script. It's like 1983 all over as Dev goose-stepped up and down Garvaghy Road taking pot shots at kids as they were frantically chased by erection wielding Priests. Absolutely Splendid.
1983 20 September 1983: A former UDR soldier, John Truckle (61), was killed by an IRA booby-trap bomb attached to his car outside his home at Woodside Hill. No mention of the Garvaghy Road on Wiki for '83
Beyond hope. Typical obfuscation. The country that is now Argentina had declared its independence around 1810. There was always a seat of government in Buenos Aires across the time the islands were claimed by what is now Argentina. But you know yourself, colonial powers are generally loath to let their territories go without a fight and so for a few decades there was a bit of sorting to be done with Spain. But the seat of government, and claim to the islands, was always in Buenos Aires until threat of force. As an analogy, it would be like the Brits claiming the Aran Islands in 1948 just prior to the declaration of the Irish Republic, and refusing to give them back to this day because "ya know, technically the Republic of Ireland didn't exist when we claimed these islands", even though anyone with the slightest bit of common sense would recognise that technicality to be an absolute nonsense.
Port Stanley has a red phone box so it must British. I think we can all agree that fact alone puts that debate firmly to bed. Let's move on to Gibraltar.
