Chavez vows revenge for Falklands war

Originally posted by Chris McGee

Originally posted by Flyer
How about the channel islands just off france? They are hundreds of miles closer to france than the Falklands to Argentina.

That's an impressive feat since the channel is about 100 miles wide. The majority of the channel islands are around 70 miles from Britain, well within our territorial waters.

Also well within French waters.

Look, theres a pic upload.wikimedia.org...

According to your warped logic, they should be french.

They are under 20 miles away from france and the Falklands are over 900 miles away from argentina so I was right about the distance despite your attempted snipe.

lol let them try take the Falklands by force using their so called state of the art Iranian/Russian equipment, i think they will get a big surprise from UK military equipment, also i think if Argentina want no miltary bases no more as they would all be bombed or mini nuked to smitherines by the RAF, as they were warned last time during the first Falklands war.

As far as I understand the situation of the Falkland Islands is that they have a very complex history and many nations "claim" this islands for their territory. France, Britain, Spain, and Argentina all claiming possession, and establishing as well as abandoning settlements on the islands. Problem is, that this territory is a legacy of a former mighty British Empire, and the reasons for Falkland War was that it was probably one of the last strikes of this empire, to show the world, that they are as mighty as they once was and can wage a naval invasion several thousand miles away from home port. In any case, if you ask me, Falklands are as British, as Jamaica is, and they never were British - since they basicly took the island.

But that is another story. Here Chavez is only saying, that any attempt to invade any countries or islands in Latin America should not end very well. There is no revenge here - only a warning. And I do not see any Latin American countries invading islands around United Kingdom.

There are quite a number of misrepresentations and misunderstandings about the Falklands that are being perpetuated here. Before making assumptions it is wise to look at the facts.

In the Nootka convensions of 1790, Britain ceded all rights to the islands to Spain, without any conditions attached. When Argentina gained Independence from Spain in 1860 it became sovereign ruler of the Falklands due to the internationally recognised uti possidetis juris principle. Britain was quick to congratulate the newly formed Argentina and even entered into trade agreements with them that specifically recognise Argentines legal claim of the Islands. When the Argentinian government exercised its right of control over the islands and prevented the illegal poaching of seals by Americans, The US, in violation of the Monroe Doctrine, retaliated by sacking the Argentinian colony and destroying the Base there. Later the British invaded and expelled the Argentinian colonists, repatriating them to Montevideo.

Argentina has never relinquished it's legal claim over the islands and international law is on their side. The British did indeed invade and illegally occupy the islands and form a British colony. The UN commission on decolonization has repeatedly called upon the British to renew negotiations for the decolonization of the islands. Self rule only applies when the local population has been oppressed by colonial rulers, and not when it is a transplanted population as in this case. All Argentinian inhabitants were forced out at gunpoint and British rule has made it illegal for anyone from Argentina to live there to this day.

Released documents from the British government clearly show that they have been planning on an eventual had back and that they recognise their claim of ownership has no legal basis. The hand back would most likely be based on the same principle as the Hong Kong handback In fact, when the British first took control over the islands, British judges refused to hear criminal cases brought fourth by the new Colonial rulers, because they rightfully stated that British had no legal authority there.

I have documented a great deal of research on this subject in another thread here on ATS if you would like to see the specific details. Go to this thread and begin on page 5. Argentines legal claim to the Falklands

As for Why the British value the Falklands... Well, natural resource exploitation, having a base in the southern seas, closeness to Antarctica, and in general a stiff attitude to the end of the British Empire and misplaced pride, all contribute.

When an arrogant Argentinian president foolishly started the War for the Islands, Margret Thatcher, who was in a weak political position at home, saw this as an opportunity to strengthen her position. Right after the War, both the UN and the US called upon Britain to renew negotiations for the Decolonization of the Islands. The foolish president of Argentina was soundly thrown out of office in the next election, because his violent attitude had set back any chance of resolution for generations.

[edit on 3/9/07 by Terapin]

Originally posted by Flyer
Should we give the channel islands to the french too?

We should defend those islands as we would our own mainland.

I'm a Jersey (Channel Islands) native, and even though we can see France from here and we can't see England, we are British till we die. Even though the island has a rich French heritage, the people and culture here are British and we would fight for Britain and expect the rest of Britain to fight for us.

If any French tried to claim our Island as theirs (which they have done) we would (try to) kick their arses back to France! (like we have done!)

If the Falklanders have the same mindset to be British then let them be British.

[edit on 3/9/2007 by malganis]

Originally posted by malganis

Originally posted by Flyer
Should we give the channel islands to the french too?

We should defend those islands as we would our own mainland.

If the Falklanders have the same mindset to be British then let them be British.

[edit on 3/9/2007 by malganis]

Exactly, just as the people from the Antilles wants to remain dutch, but with some autonomy. CHavez claims those as well, they're just 200 nautic miles from Venezuela. But just as all the Islands just from the shore off Nicaruagua are Colombia's possessions.
This man tried to get the same Sympathy as Castro, giving some money and oil to the poor over here and there, now seizing parlement and yet i wonder when all this rethoric comes to practice. It 'll be fun if the british could test their brand new carriers against this moron, but maybe even chavez learned from that war?...

[edit on 3-9-2007 by Foppezao]

Haha mr chavez couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery let alone a victory against the brits. Why are all these radicals all of a sudden kicking off? silly people getting to big for their boots. This guy needs a slap

Actually there is a resolution over the Falklands ... Argentina should butt out and mind their own business (to say it in PC terms). The people of the Falklands have stated many times that they wish to remain a UK territory so I dont see what the issue is for Argentina and its time they realize that.

Having served down in the Falklands on a six month detachment, I can assure you there is a formidable British military presense there, including Air, land and naval assets. Mount pleasant airfield is well protected by the excellent RAF Regiment (personal bias ) the islands are patrolled by Naval Surface and subsurface vessels. and an Army contingent of several thousand.

On a personal note, the Islands are lovely, the wildlife amasing and the local Bennies friendly.


Peace

oh and the reason I think we're keeping it is all the natural resources sitting under the islands

reply to post by ChrisF231


The islands are under the control of the British only because they stole them by force and kicked out the legitimate inhabitants at gun point. This is a historical fact. The British admit this and so does Richard Davies, A Falkland Island counsel who is perhaps the most vocal proponent of self rule for the Falklands. The problem with self determination in this case is exactly what the UN states. Self Determination can only apply when the inhabitants are oppressed by colonial rulers. One can not add legitimacy to the theft of the islands by then allowing the descendants of the thieves to "choose" to have self rule.

For example, if Chavez had some magic weapon or defence shield, and invaded Wales kicking out all current inhabitants. Say that the magic defence shield he had prevented Britain from doing anything about it and that Chavez could bring in his own population. Would it then be OK for eight generations later to say that it was fine for the new inhabitants descendants to determine that they wished the land to belong to Venezuela?

This is what has happened in the Falklands. The land was illegally taken by force from its recognised owners. All descendants of the legitimate owners have been banned from living there. It is it OK now to say that the new, imported occupiers can vote for self rule? The UN says NO. International law says NO. These are FACTS not opinions. There is a clear line of evidence to back this up. Even the British government has made plans for an eventual hand back of the islands, perhaps in a similar style as the Hong Kong hand back. Hong Kong was taken by the British as a result of a terrible Opium war when Britain was the worlds largest drug dealer, far worse than anything happening today. Hong Kong was rightfully returned. No other nation in the world has as much experience in decolonization, and returning territory, as does Britain. While due to the emotional turmoil caused by the Falklands war, any hand back will not be in the near future, it will undoubtedly come to pass at some point. It will not be the result of force, but through a political agreement.

Stick to the facts.

[edit on 3/9/07 by Terapin]

reply to post by Terapin



Then sir, do you not think it right that the US forces be thrown off of Diego Garcia (BIOT) and given back to the population that were thrown off of it and forced to live in poverty and slums?

I'd have to look at the facts and history about Diego Garcia before I make any meaningful comment on that subject. Anything else would just be opinion.

After a brief look at Diego Garcia, it would seem that it is under UK possession and a deal had been struck to let the US use it for a period of time. The former inhabitants who were descendant's of an imported colony were forced off by both the UK and the US. They have sued for the right of return and British courts agreed with them. The British government has still not allowed their return. If the British courts say they have the right of return then that is the law and it should be folowed. The US use deal may expire as early as 2016 or as late as 2036.

Terapin, you've already made yourself look a fool in the other thread by making stuff up, don't do it again.

The UN thinks they are British as they called for the Argentinians to withdraw.

I can only assume you are Argentinian or at least South American to keep on coming up with rubbish like this.

Shouldn't you be whining about giving America back to the Indians or Australia back to the aborigines rather than bleating on about someone claiming and uninhabited island?

Originally posted by Souljah
There is no revenge here - only a warning. And I do not see any Latin American countries invading islands around United Kingdom.

Well if it is not revenge as you call it, why then does the original article quote him stating it was "revenge"?

First Post

reply to post by Flyer


Flyer, careful with your accusations.

In the other thread, and in this one I only offered the facts. I encouraged everyone in the other thread to check out thespecific treaties and facts for themselves. The data is there for all to read and if you choose to look for yourself, you can see quite clearly that I did not make anything up. If you bothered to read the thread you would see that I mentioned that I am neither British nor Argentinian and have no specific national bias. I only seek the facts and follow the data. Each treaty and document is there for you to read if you choose to. I outlined 12 specific items for you to verify and read for yourself. The UN position on decolonization is also well documented and available for you to read. I also pointed to specific British documents that have been released that show very clearly the British position and their long history of plans for an eventual hand back. Do not accuse me of making false statements unless you can back it up with factual data. I have done the research and offered it for everyone to see for themselves in the other thread and thus far no one has offered anything that indicates otherwise.

It is foolish to make accusations when you can not offer any data and have not bothered to read the documents I offered. Perhaps you should look at the 12 items I outlined in the other thread and comment on them first.

At ATS we seek to deny ignorance. Many express opinion based on personal feelings and a misunderstanding of history and the facts. When people make a deliberate choice to ignore the facts and history then they also choose to remain ignorant. That is fine and they have the right to choose so. I choose to look at the data and see where it leads. If the data shows different, and I learn something new, then I am perfectly willing to revise my understanding of the situation. If you feel that you have some hidden information then by all means share it with us. If you choose to ignore the data then making accusations only weakens your opinions to the point of being meaningless.

read this part of the article

His outspoken attacks on Britain and his support for Buenos Aires have gone down well in Argentina, where President Nestor Kirchner’s wife, Cristina, is the favourite to succeed her husband in elections next month.

He is trying to influence an election. nothing new here, he has tried it before.

---------------------

Britain has a strong military force in the Falklands and there are stand by forces incase Argentina try an invasion.

And, Britain has other colonies in the area surrounding Venezuela. The Royal navy has a high presence.

Chavez can pretend to be tough and mighty, but the British army out weights the Venezuelan army. And, as long as the people on the Falklands wish to remain British, any government in the United Kingdom will protect it by any means.

For those who choose to follow the data where it leads, I suggest that you read the following:
1.) The Nootka conventions, where you can see that Britain 'cedes the islands without proviso.' (They gave up all rights without conditions.)
2.) Announcements made in 1816 by The British government, and the Times of London, regarding Argentina's new independence, where you can see that the British recognize the Falklands as belonging to Argentina. You can also read about this in "El Redactor” (Cádiz, Spain) from the same date.
2.) The British/Argentinian treaty of Friendship and Trade of 1825 where you can see that Britain once again officially recognizes the Islands as belonging to Argentina and makes no claims what so ever regarding the now meaningless Nootka treaties.
3.) British court documents from 1833 which demonstrate that the British judges returned the cases without finding as they had no legal jurisdiction in the Falklands.
4.) The Public Record Office refers to a Foreign Office document dating back to 1940 called, "Offer made by His Majesty's government to reunify the Falkland Islands with Argentina, and to agree to a leaseback."
5.) In 1965 the UN’s General assembly urged Britain and Argentina through Resolution 2065 to "proceed without delay" with negotiations. These negotiations began almost immediately and were kept mostly in secret and away from the public eye.
6.) The UN General Assembly resolution 2065 (XX) of 1965 confirmed "that the right to self-determination was not applicable to the islanders since they were a British population transplanted with the intention of setting up a colony."
7.) Declassified Foreign Office documents show that, by 1968, a "Memorandum of Understanding" was in the final stages in which Britain would agree to hand back the islands to Argentina. The basis of the talks were a "transfer and leaseback" based on the Hong Kong model or even perhaps a joint temporary British-Argentine sovereignty known as condominum. (That is a legal term and not a fancy apartment)
8.) Additional released documents show that James Callaghan, when he was Foreign Secretary in the 1970s, stated "We must yield some ground and ... be prepared to discuss a leaseback arrangement."
9.) UN Resolutions from November 4, 1982, requesting a resumption of the negotiations for the eventual decolonization and hand back. (This was after the Falklands war)
10.) The legal definition of "Without Proviso"
11.) The legal definition of "Uti Possidetis Juris"
12.) The legal definition of "Condominum"

It is Chavez making the most of the UK's (currrently weak) international position after our pull out of Iraq.

Nothing will come of it, Just bluster.

I do hope he doesn't make the same mistake as the junta made 24 years ago, because the result will be the same.

Alot of lives lost for no other reason than political posturing.

Yes, Terapin

you've posted that ALLLLLLL before in another thread. The people wish to remain British, so deal with it.

Back to the subject.

Reading into this more, could Chavez be trying to start a war with the US and Britain? it does seem like he is trying everything to get our attention.

This isn't like Iran. Britain and US already have the forces in place to strike if needed.

Falklands has a large UK naval base and RAF force too.

Due to the location of other colonies, Britain can send more forces within days.

And as for the United States, they can easily send forces to and from. So, from reading what I have said, why is Chavez trying to start a potential war with a Country that can strike within hours?