posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 06:21 PM
Originally posted by AthlonSavage
reply to post by michael1983l
But your area for debate is moot. Distance to teritory is only applicable in the time where the land does not already have recognised soverignty or at
the very least an indiginous population. Argentina has no legal right to the Islands which is exactly the reason why they are still under British
Soverignty. They can rattle their sabres all they want, we all know it is only for two reasons, with the first being that is gains political points
for Kirchner with her people and secondly they are scared they will miss out on the copious amounts of oil underneath the surrounding areas of the
Falklands. No oil and they wouldn't give two hoots.
I would like to hear other members opinion. The things about laws is there not always right and therefore they get updated. It would be nice if there
was a member on Ats who had current understanding and knowledge of international territorial laws. Im not interested sabre rattles or theories, just
want to see facts for the debate.
Forget the laws, simple common sense should prevail here.
1) The Falkland Islands has existed for far longer than Argentina has, therefore how can Argentina have any right to the Nation?
2) The people overwhelmingly do not wish to be under Argentine Soverignty.
3) There has been NO Argentine indiginous population on the Falkland Islands in the whole history of Argeintina existing.
Is there really any kind of debate here?