It was 30 years ago today ............

[Agent Nationaux]

So you also think stopping trade and boycotting Iran is also open to criticism, or maybe Pakistan as well because they are buying Iranian gas for their energy needs?

[sledger]

Originally Posted by Agent Nationaux

So you also think stopping trade and boycotting Iran is also open to criticism, or maybe Pakistan as well because they are buying Iranian gas for their energy needs?

Well, no. You'll notice I didn't say anything about Iran or Pakistan.

[Agent Nationaux]

So it isn't open to criticism and therefore right?

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by Agent Nationaux

It's Argentina's right if they want to stop trade. No one should complain about that.

It depends - are Argentina refusing to trade with the Falklands, or are they preventing other nations trading with the Falklands?

[sledger]

Originally Posted by Agent Nationaux

So it isn't open to criticism and therefore right?

I have absolutely no knowledge about the trade regime in Iran, as it's not a part of the WTO. I think I may have misunderstood your above post, but my overall position on the matter is that the decision of any government on anything is open to criticism. End of. Particularly if the acts of said Government are illegal, which by the sounds of things the Argentine position RE: the Falklands absolutely is.

[Agent Nationaux]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

It depends - are Argentina refusing to trade with the Falklands, or are they preventing other nations trading with the Falklands?

Exactly. I accept when a nation itself refuses to trade, but when they prevent others from trading, then it becomes a disgraceful act.

[Agent Nationaux]

Originally Posted by sledger

I have absolutely no knowledge about the trade regime in Iran, as it's not a part of the WTO. I think I may have misunderstood your above post, but my overall position on the matter is that the decision of any government on anything is open to criticism. End of. Particularly if the acts of said Government are illegal, which by the sounds of things the Argentine position RE: the Falklands absolutely is.

OK fair enough.

[four_or_six]

Originally Posted by GingerFurball

It depends - are Argentina refusing to trade with the Falklands, or are they preventing other nations trading with the Falklands?

My understanding is that they're saying if you trade with them, we won't trade with you.

[GIMH]

Originally Posted by fredfertang

The self-determination stuff is all a smokescreen though - if what was within the islands territorial waters was of no interest then the islands would've been Argentinian years before Thatcher's stunt

This is obviously true but at the same time I don't think it means self-determination shouldn't be a factor. Just because politicians use it as an excuse doesn't mean we can't believe in it for real, after all.

[GingerFurball]

Originally Posted by GIMH

This is obviously true but at the same time I don't think it means self-determination shouldn't be a factor. Just because politicians use it as an excuse doesn't mean we can't believe in it for real, after all.

It also doesn't explain why we've held onto Gibraltar.

[Pothas]

Originally Posted by fredfertang

The self-determination stuff is all a smokescreen though - if what was within the islands territorial waters was of no interest then the islands would've been Argentinian years before Thatcher's stunt

Yeah exactly, the self-determination argument has a lot of merit but it is in no way the reason why the Falklands are still British.

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Some very interesting articles on this issue on the BBC. Not all of Argentina supports the claim and there's massive concerns that the Falklands are again being used to mask the failings of the government on Domestic policy. I really don't see how you can ignore the rights of the Islanders themselves to choose their future.

[Burgey]

There was no indigenous population on the Falklands before thru were colonised, was there?

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Originally Posted by Burgey

There was no indigenous population on the Falklands before thru were colonised, was there?

I think there had been a Spanish colony, but it had disappeared by the time the British laid claim to them. I'm pretty sure that Argentina's claim is based on the Spanish never having officially ceded the territory when their colony failed. No indigenous people though, I believe.

[cpr]

I believe the British Government were actually considering a dual sovereignty plan just before Argentina invaded - Which was basically the military juanta diverting attention from home.


Also, British colonalists had been on and off the Island since before Argentina was an independant country. Also there were no native inhabitants when European settlers first arrived, making Argentina's claim quite thin in my eyes.

In addition, the people see themselves as British, and want to stay as such. Deciding factor for me.

Who cares who its nearer to, if you rock up uninvited, with guns, and seize control, it aint yours (not anymore anyway!)