They did this some years ago as well. I was sufficiently outraged to phone Pengiun News and tell them and got that lovely accent (sort of a deep, deep, Dorset) telling me not to worry.....
Argentinian hackers yesterday raised their national flag over the Falkland Islands' Penguin News - a temporary occupation in which they laid out their case for sovereignty over the South Atlantic paradise island group. The hacked Penguin News website The invaders' bullet-point list of claims - backed by an rousing audio …
Would someone please tell these greedy span-yards to stop trying to colonise every last plot of land they happen across. You think they'd be happy with colonising what is now called Argentina and exterminating its native population, but no, they have to go further and take our little island too.
Unlike South America, our island was barren (apart from the penguins - whom I'd sooner the company of than any span-yard) so no one was harmed in the taking of the Falklands. Apart from a few continental squatters.
Argentina, just think - If we did that to Sadam over the oil, what do you think we'll do to you (again)? We'll be out of Iraq in a few years, leaving an awful lot of troops and kit looking for a new purpose...
There isn't much left of the old Empire nowadays. It was built on screwing over locals to get at raw materials, we have imported out own locals as have the Spanish but the buggers won't let it lie.
Hasn't anyone learnt what happened to the Kurds after we did chemical bombing runs on them years and years ago.
Listen up you Argies - remember we only shoot when your backs are turned. We've decided it's all our oil, anymore of this and you can have Tevez back.
"they were inherited from Spain and its Viceroyalty of Rio de la Plata" and "because Argentina is the closest country"
By that logic, they presumably also claim sovereignty over Paraguay, Uruguay and Bolivia too then?
"the British position, which states that Las Malvinas are actually the Falkland Islands because we say so"
Or more accurately, because the United Nations says so.
'These old chestnuts are, of course, completely at odds with the British position, which states that Las Malvinas are actually the Falkland Islands because we say so.'
This statement is firstly a gross simplification. The issue is far more complicated than that. Dare i be so bold as to suggest that this level of flippancy is wholly inappropriate given that 255 British soldiers and 649 Argentinian soldiers died last time the islands' sovereignty was contested.
I suspect that Lester Haines is aware of these facts and the crass and blundering quote doesn't actually portray his opinion so much as the fact that his wish to be witty will override his personal and journalistic integrity.
You really should be ashamed.
I know its probably a stupid question but has anyone bothered asking the islanders which they want to remain/become part of? Do Falkland islanders consider themselves British or Argentinians/Spanish? The answer should decide the question. End of Story.
Similar idea should apply on all disputed territories... But i guess that would be too easy...
That would indeed be a easy way to do it. The normal approach is to import a vast quantity of your own onto your disputed territory --- say, Han chinese to tibet; but also many regions in france and spain earlier, parts of russia and the baltics, etc etc.
In short, asking the "locals" will not show you who/what's right, but who's locally dominant enough to control the demographics. Which is in itself also some information, as it's a fait accompli usually. But that's the way reality works --- if not, it's all of the USA to the native americans, all of Europe to the Basques probably.
Let's not consider Israel, where your proposed questioning of locals would have given us some different results in 1947.
You been the way the perfidious Albion imported a bunch of people into Gibraltar? Which is now a center for smuggling and other crime? And yet whenever the question of returning the Rock to its owners is brought up the answer is "the locals don't wanna?"
Dang straight you look at the history not the locals.
Gibraltar was ceded to the British by the Treaty of Utrech. As for smuggling and other crime, I'm sure the locals are quite capable of producing their own statistics about how actually Gib is better regulated and controlled and that most of the dodgy stuff goes on via the nearby Spanish coastline.
LMFAO - right wingnut nationalists giving the post above the negs... :P
Truth is, Argentina have no vote on the security council, but WE do. So what WE say in the UN has much more power than any other nation not on the UNSC.
If we say the Malvinas are ours, who are Argentina to argue? It's our word against theirs, but they have just as strong a claim on 'our' Channel Islands as we do on 'their' Malvinas.
There's an excellent bit in "Don't cry for me, Sergeant-Major" where a survival guy/Falklands specialist is talking to the squaddies on their spring cruise south in April '82 about foraging for food locally.
(Paraphrasing from memory): "If you're feeling a little peckish and you see a nice hole in the ground and think, ooh, a nice juicy fat bunny, do not stick your hand down it. Them holes have penguins in'em, what are vicious little buggers that'll have your fingers off in a trice."
I dunno, I feel sorry for those Argies, their economy is crap, they could use some natural resources. Whereas the UK could use a bit of reputation-rebuilding (and financially stronger trading partners to whom we might export things wouldn't hurt). Call me right-on but it feels a bit C19th to be defending an island 6,000 miles away. There might be a legal case but the moral case seems very shaky indeed from my possibly dim viewpoint. Plus it seems to give a kind of succour to the Russias and Chinas of this world who are itching to invade the South Pole / Taiwan / etc, etc.
And here I am sure I am completely ignorant, but, it seems to reinforce this really toxic and spurious Iraq-war paradigm of international law as jungle law - that it consists of any self-serving, partisan, adversarial zero-sum-or-less bullshit one's attorney general comes up with and which might be backed up by force, rather than, say, oh you get the point....
The troll because no doubt I'm an unpatriotic traitor etc etc.
You're not a traitor, just ignorant of history. Your point might be valid if this had all kicked off in 1982 but in fact it goes back to the 17th century.
Basically, you're forgetting that hundreds of years ago that area of the world was being colonised by various different European powers, so the fact that they are closest to Argentina matters not a jot. Argentina only really controlled them for a couple of months in the 19th century; even the French and the Americans had a go. The Spanish did so for longer (which is the usual basis for Argentine claims) but couldn't be bothered and pretty much gave them up.
By your logic, Canada should belong to the United States since it's closest to the country that gained independence first. And, funnily enough, plenty of Americans thought so too right through the 19th century...
Domestic tensions, rapidly tanking economy, unpopular government trying to cling to power in the face of popular resentment. The only difference is that this one was voted in whilst the last time this happened, it was a military junta.
Yes, the old chestnut of the falklands is being raised to deflect from the fact that Argentina's economy is in the shit again, and that the government is incapable of dealing with the problem. It wasn't particularly grand when I was down there a few years back and it's only got worse since then.
The stories started in Argentinian newspapers first - newspapers that are heavily controlled by the government and so can be relied upon to predict the direction the government wishes to take. Ours are latecomers to the game and Brown wouldn't be daft enough to try bashing the argies as a way to stay in power. It wouldn't work. Better to hammer on the the Tories for being toffs and threatening to take away all your money to give to fat cats, and lo and behold that's exactly the stance he's taking. Even though that's what *he* did.
"There might be a legal case but the moral case seems very shaky indeed from my possibly dim viewpoint. "
How about the viewpoint of the people who live there?
It seems to me that if Argentina really want the Falklands/Malvinas/Whatever back a "Hearts and Minds" campaign to gain the trust and goodwill of the inhabitants would be a more effective gambit than bellicose posturing, and that if they want to gain economically from any mineral exploitation they'd be far better off building bridges with the UK (with a view to securing some kind of "joint venture" status for Argentine OilCos and a share of the not-inconsiderable business from building/manitaining/servicing the not inconsiderable infrastructure required) rather than burning them.
I'd bet, oooohhh, at least 50p that this whole affair is intended for domestic consumption on the Argentine mainland. There wouldn't by any chance be an election due over there in the next few months would there...
I buy that.
But there really is no need to swear, I didn't pretend other than complete ignorance.
I suppose I hoped to be enlightened as to the case of the British government, which I think is poorly understood and explained (and frankly after Iraq I am incapable of simply trusting what dumbed-down explanation might be forthcoming therefrom). It's an education reading all of these comments, a lot of people including yourself have given the issue due thought and have interesting perspectives to bring to bear.
A miserable hole in the arse-end of nowhere, 2000 people live there and they are just battered around for political reasons, the only reason they wanted to be British is to keep the status quo (it's fear of the unknown), it's only value is strategic and political and because of the 50m exclusion zone fishing rights ans it now has access to oil.
Vulcan 604 is a good read 'tho if you detach yourself from the politicts behind the tory motives for the war, it's unlikely the UK would be able to do the same again, no planes, no boats.
The Falkland Islands have had their own Government since 1985, the oil exploration and any monies from it is down to them. Its no different from Australia being independent or New Zealand except that the Falkland Islands were uninhabited and we didn't slaughter the natives.
Its a bit ludicrous that in the 21st Century a supposedly mature democracy like Argentina, is bullying a small island community for an imagined sleight in the 19th Century that has been morphed into a huge national myth by the Peronists. Peron exploited it back in the '40s because he wanted to end the British domination of Argentine industry like the Railways. Peron himself said he didn't really believe in the claim but "it was useful to unite the people". Nothing like a spot of narrow nationalism and racial hatred to bind the people together.
The Argentine paper claim isn't worth the paper its written on, its full of outright lies and half-truths. Trouble is they say it so loud and so often that lazy journo types don't check the facts and in truth they've started to believe themselves. Well not too much, they backed right off the idea of taking it to the Hague, when someone pointed out that would mean the claim would be examined by competent judges.
See it for what it is.
@Iglethal: I believe someone did ask the Falklanders whether they'd like to be British or Argentinian, and they chose to stick with Blighty. That the population is almost exclusively descended from British stock might have influenced their decision, but who are we to argue?
Anyway, why is it that a bunch of hacktivists replacing Twitter's homepage with pro-Iranian propaganda is classed as "cyber terrorism", while this ostensibly identical act is not?
At least if they do find a heap of oil the Americans will probably help us out a bit more than (the absolute fuckin zero) they did last time sabre rattling turned into invasion, missile launches and gunfire.
Oh and just for the record the islanders themselves are very much of the opinion that they are British.
And it's not like we couldn't do with the cash now is it?
Firstly, the Argentine Gov is being rather hypocritical. In the Triple Alliance War of 1864-1870, Argentina seized thousands of square miles of Paraguyian land - which they have refused to give back. Moreover, when the Falklands became British, Argentina was a Spanish colony - not an independent state.
Secondly, there was a treaty in place between Britain and Argentina which shared oil rights, before the current Argentinian PM's Husband (who used to be the PM) had a hissy fit and tore up the aggreement.
Thirdly, when the UN was formed in 1945 (to which Argentina is a signatory), it provided the Law of Self Determination. This gives the people of any land the right to determine if they wish to be independent or be ruled by a remote government. The Falkland Islanders are proudly British, and do not wish this to change.
Forthly, the Argentine economy is in tatters (strangely similar to the economic situation in '82) and stirring up nationistic feelings is a great way to distract the populus of Argentina away from the economy. Although, I admit there was also the Junta trying to cover up the disappearance of 30,000 people in '82.
Lastly, the oil platform is in International waters - if the Argentine Gov want to park their own oil rig next to the British one, there is nothing to stop them. Why don't they?
So - sod off Argentina!
But to be fair, if it wasn't for the Americans the Vulcan bombing raids wouldn't have been possible, they broke the "non involvement" rules by giving the UK fuel at Ascension Island (and a lot of it too).
The Vulcan raids showed Argentina that we could fly half way round the world and bomb them if we fancied, and Vulcans... were't they converted to be nuke bombers... hmmm... put the willies up them and no mistake.
A little bit of research would do wonders...
1. The Ascension Islands are British territory. The Septics didn't want us to land our aircraft but didn't have any choice as we own the Island.
2. The Vulcan bomber wasn't converted to carry nuclear weapons, it was designed to.
Fail...because you didn't do your homework.
lol.... A little bit of research would do wonders...
You appear to have done none, yes The Ascension Islands are British territory (technically a dependency), but the UK had almost no fuel there, the fuel came from the US tankers and the UK couldn't get tankers there in time, besides iirc the management of the port and airstrip was "given" to the US by the UK.
Although the Vulcan was designed to carry nukes, their secondary role was to carry conventional weapons, over 20, 1000lb bombs in fact, the kit used to hold and deliver these bombs was ripped out of the Vulcans (converting to nuke only) and sold to a scrap yard, luckily the scrap yard hadn't destroyed the kit so the Vulcans were converted back to convential bombers (there's a similar story around the inflight refueling nozles).
So I guess a double fail back on you, na na na na naaaa. Read "Vulcan 607" it's a fantastic book.
I was actually born at RAF Brize Norton, (which was the UK starting point for the UK, Ascension, Falkland airlink) while my Father was stationed there.
I don't think the oil rig is in international waters as far as mineral rights are concerned. I seem to recall that you had the mineral rights to everything on bit of continental shelf and if you bumped into the rights of another country you split down the middle (more or less).
Where else will the passengers manage to instantaneously more than double the population density? Besides, there's a lovely street and two shops well worth the couple of hours the passengers are allowed on land... and they fit right in with the sheep you see everywhere else on the islands.
Mine's the one with the one-way ticket in the pocket...
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019