The Argies have never had control of the Falklands and when they say they want "it back"...its bulls hit .. I agree, I was never sure why we were interested in a group of freezing cold islands in the South Atlantic...until I met a guy in the UAE who is a Geophysicist working in the oil and gas business. He was seconded to the Islands over 10 years ago for about a year on behalf of BP. He reckons there is plenty of oil down there, however it will be difficult to recover..but it is there. So, it won't matter what Trump or the Argies want, it won't be owned by anyone else
They have had control but, in any case, that inadvertently backs up what I’m saying. Russia actually did ‘have control’ of Ukraine which gives them, at least, equal claim if you’re using that argument. It's not to defend Russia, just saying we're not exactly blameless in these things. If ‘taking control by force’ is legitimate, for the UK in the Falklands which is 8000 miles away, it makes it slightly more difficult to criticise Russia.
How did the UK decide that it 'officially owned' the Falklands? As you've read two books on the subject I'd imagine you know.
Not sure.. but when the British arrived in the 1600’s.. the islands were uninhabited but I’m confident that Argentina have never owned or have a legal claim to the islands.. Admittedly they are close to their mainland.. but that’s about it
The definitely have, I can assure you. But that's not my point ... ... the question is, what rights does the UK have to own those islands?
Probably because we turned up at an unpopulated island and populated it. Up until the Argies invaded, possibly our most bloodless effort in our Empire building. As far as I'm concerned, until we suck all the oil up, and until the last great great grandchild of a UK soldier who fought there dies, Argentina should have no claim over it.
I can find zero reference to Argentina owning the Falklands… I have to assume if they did the UN would put huge pressure on the UK to return them … but I’m open minded to be proved wrong
'Since the islands had no permanent inhabitants, in 1823 Buenos Aires granted German-born merchant Luis Vernet permission to conduct fishing activities and exploit feral cattle in the archipelago. Vernet settled at the ruins of Puerto Soledad in 1826, and accumulated resources on the islands until the venture was secure enough to bring settlers and form a permanent colony. Buenos Aires named Vernet military and civil commander of the islands in 1829.' The fact there were settlers means the islands weren't uninhabited.
All these details are irrelevant anyway. Whether the Falklands were inhabited or not we simply decided we were having those islands and took them by force. Ukraine was historically Russian, and shares a border, whereas the Falklands are thousands of miles away. I'm not defending Russia at all, just saying Great Britain needs to choose it's words carefully.
And that right there is why I could never be a politician, I'd have started a war ages ago telling heads of state what I (and other state leaders who don't have the balls to say) really think of them.
Few countries have more blood on their hands than us and in every corner of the world. We slaughtered or oppressed the inhabitants of endless countries and took their wealth. Where did all that money go? Thatcher told people we had to be proud that we'd kicked the Argentines out of the Falklands by force ... ... I don't feel particularly proud tbh. please log in to view this image
Finally we turned up again in the 1800's, told the Argies to take down their flag and bugger off! Whatever the case, how far back do you go? The Spaniards took the Argentine lands from the locals by force. Then the local Spaniards gained independence from Spain and eventually create Argentina. Should Argentina give back the land to the indigenous people and all Spanish descendants be exiled back to Spain? Thats basically what Argentina want for the Falklands, the only difference is scale. I find it mind boggling that Argentina raise the fact that we are holding on to our imperialistic past when it comes to the Falklands. This is whilst their own countries entire existence and foundations are built on imperialism.
That's exactly my point mate. I was only using the Falklands as an example because of the massive distance from the country that simply decided they owned it, dates are irrelevant. Ukraine was 'Russian' much more recently and it shares a border. There are also vastly more Russians in Ukraine than there are British in the Falklands. When we sent troops to the Falklands the reason was that the majority of the inhabitants, around 3000 people, were of British origin. Russians are actually in the majority in Crimea which is 'owned' by Ukraine yet we believe that's how it should be. I'm not saying what's right or wrong, it's way too complicated for that ... ... just that we shouldn't pretend we're above reproach in these matters.
Russia voluntarily handed over the Crimea to Ukraine. It officially became part of Ukrainian territory at that point. If Russia wanted it back they’d have needed to start negotiations with Ukraine first of all to see even if it was possible. They had no right to invade and use their military force to take it back. As far as I’m aware, the UK has never signed over the Falklands to Argentina and then changed our mind and decided to take it back by force.
That's all interesting but has little to do with my general point. I certainly didn’t say, or even imply, that Putin had the right to invade. I've always thought he was an evil man … … the fact that Boris Johnson and Trump treat him like a chum confirms it.
