Argentinians protest arrival of Prince Williams on Malvinas

page: 16
15
<< 13  14  15   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by oghamxx
The Falklands were until the late 90's essentially a welfare state. Very expensive real estate! I recall reading that higher education was provided in the UK.

With the potential of oil wealth and no self defense they have no choice but to choose to remain British rather than an independent nation. Not to mention cultural and language differences with Argentina.

Self determination versus international law dating to the early 1800's. A tough call.

How many Brits or those on this thread believe the Palestinians, Kurds, Taliban; etc.should be allowed self determination?

If I were in control in Argentina I might do a Castro style 1980 boatlift emptying all my prisons and asylums and send them one way to the Falklands! LOL

It is not an equal comparison but in 1936 the US forces drove the Brit, there was only one, from Canton Island which was internationally recognized as British. In 1937 ships exchanged shots across the bow over an anchorage issue. The Brits fired the first shot! The island was 'given' back to Britain (1937?) and a new Pan-Am airstrip was built in 1939(?). .


The Palestinians should have self determination and a state.

The Kurdish issue is complicated but if the world was entirely fair they probably should be allowed their own state made up out of Northern Iraq and Southern tip of Turkey (not that its likely anytime soon).

The Taliban aren't a people, they are a political movement created by Pakistan to take power in the country by proxy. The Afghans should have self determination but thats more complicated as most don't really associate themselves with an Afghan national identify. Their affiliation is tribal.




posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by LeBombDiggity
 


What caveats are 'the English' putting on it?

Yes or No and you can have the vote as soon as possible, that's it.

It's the pro-independance lobby who are wanting to drag it out and complicate the issue.

I don't think there's been a single English person on here say that the Scots have no right whatsoever to a referendum...if anything there's been too many who see it as a foregone conclusion and good riddance.
I merely hope they decide to remain within The Union, but it's up to them.

But we digress.


Me too.

I have a deep rooted respect for Scots, Irish and Welsh people. We conquered the god damn world, but they all held us off and kept their own culture and language. I really don't mean that in any way condescending either, just outmost respect.

But if Scotland want to do their own thing, fair play. But my only concern is that Europe isn't the best place to put your cards right now.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by LeBombDiggity

Self determination is what the British quote here. And that's fair enough, it's enshrined in the UN charter, that peoples have the absolute right to determine their own fate, without any form of external let or hindrance.

But how far do you take that ?



While the posters on this board favour self determination as the basis of the British claim to the Falklands, the official claim is based on the old Roman law concept of prescription.

In other words, if you possess (control) land for 20 years without interference, then you have claimed good title to it.

In international relations, the UN appears to accept, as a general principle, that if a country has controlled land since the end of WWII, then no other state has a claim to it.

Otherwise, where does it end?

Are the Argentines willing to hand Argentina back to the native tribes and vacate Argentina?

I thought not.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   
I would like to dispute a few issues here. The Falklands apart from the defence issue is a self-financing territory as it gets its money from fishing licences. When the oil flows, the Falkland Island Government have stated that they will pay the UK for the defence assets, so therefore making them fully financially independent.

The population as its stands at the moment is around 3,000. I would not be surprised to see this rise to 10,000 over the next 10/20 years. A fair size population.

Question: When does a colonys population become the indiginous population? I ask this as not every square inch of this planet had a indiginous population, most areas were migrated too.
edit on 5/2/12 by Wotan because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by mr-lizard
I respect any move made by Scotland.

The only real fear is losing 5.5 million people who actively hate the Tory party.

Please reconsider.




Nice :-)



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


If this definition is true I doubt prescription applies.

Prescription involves the open encroachment by the new sovereign upon the territory in question for a prolonged period of time, acting as the sovereign, without protest or other contest by the original sovereign.

My understanding is the islands have been an issue since the 1820's.

I can foresee an argument on who was the original sovereign. I thought Britain recognized Spain's sovereignty about 1770.

Love makes the world go round but it's money (OIL MONEY) that greases the wheel!.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvanB


Tbh, if all of those countries who we conquered, "raped and pilliaged" could not take us on, even with their overwhelmingly numerical superiority, then they deserved to be conquered! Seriously.. The people of this teeny tiny island no less!


Yep you're right .Nations that were often often

A. Oceans apart and had no contact with each other

B, Were far less technologically advanced.

Deserved to be conquered bv this over whelming logic you provided.


The idiocy in this thread is amusing.
Those tribesmen with stone tools should have been able to defeat your guns and diseases like a real man.!!



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by paganini

Originally posted by EvanB


Tbh, if all of those countries who we conquered, "raped and pilliaged" could not take us on, even with their overwhelmingly numerical superiority, then they deserved to be conquered! Seriously.. The people of this teeny tiny island no less!


Yep you're right .Nations that were often often

A. Oceans apart and had no contact with each other

B, Were far less technologically advanced.

Deserved to be conquered bv this over whelming logic you provided.


The idiocy in this thread is amusing.
Those tribesmen with stone tools should have been able to defeat your guns and diseases like a real man.!!



You dont get out much do you??

Look up the word "sarcasm" and see the light



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by oghamxx

Prescription involves the open encroachment by the new sovereign upon the territory in question for a prolonged period of time, acting as the sovereign, without protest or other contest by the original sovereign.

My understanding is the islands have been an issue since the 1820's.


Perhaps you are correct.

I do remember reading in a book that both Argentina and the UK were aware that both of their legal claims over the Falklands were weak in the period after WWII and before the Falklands war.

On the other hand, the quote you cite appears to be sourced from

Wikipedia

Yet the document it purports to quote from

The European Journal of International Law Vol. 16 no.1

does not include without protest or other contest by the original sovereign.

Rather it states


‘the result of the peaceable exercise of de facto sovereignty for a very long period over territory subject to the sovereignty of another’


The mention of protest barring prescription in The European Journal of International Law is in respect a case in which the USA:-


'claimed title to the disputed tract on the border with Mexico on the basis of prescription, which it defined as the ‘undisturbed, uninterrupted, and unchallenged’ possession since 1848'


Hence, the USA claim did not satisfy the conditions that the USA itself put forward.

On the other hand, the UK has enjoyed the peaceable exercise of de facto sovereignty for a very long period over the Falklands. Apart from a war in 1982 which lasted a few months, almost 200 years of peaceful de facto sovereignty.

Nonetheless, The European Journal of International Law does further state


In several other municipal and international cases, acquiescence by the opposing party also turned out to be an important element in the evaluation of a claim based on prescription.


However, it goes on to further state


The doctrine of effective occupation goes a long way in capturing international legal practice. It is built on elements from the doctrines both of occupation of terra nullius and acquisitive prescription and engulfs them at the same time.

International tribunals and arbitrators in reality even use more different criteria to weigh the specific claims of the parties and attribute to them value according to the circumstances of the case.

Possession and exercise of sovereignty are only two among recognition, acquiescence, preclusion, affiliations of the inhabitants, geographical, economic and historical considerations


Hence, it would appear that a number of factors are weighted up rather than sovereignty being disputed barring the legal recognition of de facto sovereignty .

Consequently, Argentina objecting to British sovereignty of the Falklands would appear to be a factor mitigating against British claims while the long term peaceable exercise of de facto sovereignty by the British would appear to be a factor strengthening the British claim.

It could be argued that 150 years of peace occupation would appear to be a very strong claim.


edit on 5-2-2012 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by EvanB

Originally posted by paganini

Originally posted by EvanB


Tbh, if all of those countries who we conquered, "raped and pilliaged" could not take us on, even with their overwhelmingly numerical superiority, then they deserved to be conquered! Seriously.. The people of this teeny tiny island no less!


Yep you're right .Nations that were often often

A. Oceans apart and had no contact with each other

B, Were far less technologically advanced.

Deserved to be conquered bv this over whelming logic you provided.


The idiocy in this thread is amusing.
Those tribesmen with stone tools should have been able to defeat your guns and diseases like a real man.!!



You dont get out much do you??

Look up the word "sarcasm" and see the light


Or sarcasm doesn't translate well over the internet genius.

Particularly when its a discussion full of statements that are nothing short of bizarre .



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 

Thank you for a very informative post. The type I truly enjoy.

I thought that both before and after the 1982 clash both parties had agreed to have the matter settled by the UN.

I have been to Argentina many times (and about 12 times to the UK). I love the 'intensity' of the people and have observed a fringe element that keeps the Falklands issuer alive. I suspect the discovery/rumor of oil has bolstered that fringe element.

As for any international law issues involving the US I avoid them. We (our government) views us as the exception. Case in point, if a citizen of country A murders a citizen of country B, while both are in country C, which country has jurisdiction. It is internationally agreed that jurisdiction resides with country C. The US agrees EXCEPT if the murdered party was a citizen of the US, in which case the US claims jurisdiction. Might makes right!



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by paganini
 


Well maybe you should allow some of my genius to wash over you..

Or drink what im drinking right now.. Trust me, genius ideas just keep popping out of ya on this stuff..

Scrumpy Jack cider.. It makes you invincible, sexy to the ladies, a ninja master and a proffessor of everything..



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   
www.bbc.co.uk...


The deployment of Prince William, and a warship, to the Falkland Islands is "entirely routine", UK Foreign Secretary William Hague has said.

The prince began as an RAF search and rescue pilot on Saturday, while HMS Dauntless will go in the coming months.

It comes amid tensions between the UK and Argentina, as the 30th anniversary of the Falklands conflict approaches.

There was nothing provocative about "routine military movements", Mr Hague told Sky News' Murnaghan programme.



posted on Feb, 5 2012 @ 08:06 PM
link   
Who would the US favor, publicly and darkly, the next time?

This article made the news during a visit by the Queen! LOL
And for you deniers these Exocets were not from the 'international market'.

Files detail Noriega CIA connection: [NORTH SPORTS FINAL, C Edition]
Chicago Tribune (pre-1997 Fulltext) [Chicago, Ill] 16 May 1991: 8.
Turn on hit highlighting for speaking browsers
Hide highlighting
Abstract (summary)
Translate [unavailable for this document]

Manuel Noriega was "the CIA's man in Panama," controlling a $11 million agency slush fund and even supplying Washington with information on Mikhail Gorbachev, according to defense documents released Wednesday.

Noriega, backed by the CIA, also sent Exocet missiles to Argentina for use against British ships in the Falklands War and funneled hundreds of thousands of CIA dollars to Nicaraguan rebel leaders, his attorneys said.

The statements were included in 107 pages outlining classified information the defense expects to present at the ousted Panamanian leader's drug-smuggling trial. The material was released at the request of news organizations and Noriega's defense attorneys by the Justice Department security office, which is acting as custodian.

Full Text

Translate [unavailable for this document]

Manuel Noriega was "the CIA's man in Panama," controlling a $11 million agency slush fund and even supplying Washington with information on Mikhail Gorbachev, according to defense documents released Wednesday.

Noriega, backed by the CIA, also sent Exocet missiles to Argentina for use against British ships in the Falklands War and funneled hundreds of thousands of CIA dollars to Nicaraguan rebel leaders, his attorneys said.

The statements were included in 107 pages outlining classified information the defense expects to present at the ousted Panamanian leader's drug-smuggling trial. The material was released at the request of news organizations and Noriega's defense attorneys by the Justice Department security office, which is acting as custodian.

The Justice Department deleted key sections of the documents, including details of Noriega's contacts with President Bush.

Many deletions appear to deal directly with Noriega's aid to the U.S.-backed Nicaraguan rebels, known as contras.

The defense says the CIA cultivated Noriega even before he came to power in 1983 because the agency considered his populist boss, the late President Omar Torrijos, a "dangerous leftist."

With Noriega heading Torrijos' intelligence network, the CIA gave him "contingency funds" that, over the years, amounted to $11 million and were not listed on the agency's books, the defense said.

"It was officially justified as support for `institutional cooperation,' but in fact it was a slush fund turned over to the head of the `cooperating' agency to do with as he desired," said the defense.

The CIA and the U.S. Army have acknowledged direct payments to Noriega of about $300,000 during his career.

Some parts of the documents say Noriega faithfully reported to the CIA about Torrijos' meetings with Fidel Castro in Cuba and offered information about more distant communist countries.

In January 1985, Noriega met with Hans Juergen Wischnewski, East Germany's parliament president and foreign affairs chief. The meeting included discussion of personnel changes in the Soviet Union, information that Noriega immediately passed on to the CIA.

"This information was instrumental in U.S. support for then little-known Gorbachev and his people," the defense said.

Another section says that in the Falklands War, despite the official U.S. tilt toward England, the CIA "was concerned that Argentina's forces . . . would be crushed."

"Gen. Noriega shared their concern and arranged for the purchase of Exocet missiles which the Argentinians later used with great effect," the defense said. The Exocets sank several British ships and were Argentina's only effective weapon.

Noriega trial is set for July 22 on charges that he accepted $4.6 million in bribes from Colombia's Medellin drug cartel to turn Panama into a way station for U.S.-bound coc aine shipments.

Copyright Chicago Tribune Co. May 16, 1991
Word count: 439





new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 13  14  15   >>

log in

join