The Argies are still ignorant 25 years on.

The Argies are still proving how ignorant they really are 25 years since they were rightfully turfed out of the Falkland Islands.They're still saying that the Falkland Islands are part of Argentina,when the people of the Falkland Islands have already said,"No Way!" in the same way that the Gibraltarians told the bully-boys from Spain where to get off.

Why can't the braindead politicians from both Argentina & Spain accept that the people of these 2 British colonies have spoken? The same thing applies to the Somalian politicians & warlords who still claim that Somaliland is part of a 'Greater Somalia',when the Somalilanders have already spoken through the power of casting their ballots in the ballot box approving the right of Somaliland to be recognised as an independent state.

 

I certainly woudnt call the Argentinians Ignorant, I would say though that there politicians gave them a false sence of security once before and now are doing it again, but at least this time they are confining themselfs to the diplomatic scene. What you have to remember is that the last time round Argentina was under the rule of a ruthless dictatorship with 100s of people dissapearing practicly daily & a economy that was non existant, they needed something to hang on to power and thought that the Falklands would be a easy trip
What I realy do regret though is the stupid loss of life on both sides, it was a war that did not need to happen but both sides wanted it for political reasons.

 

well, it took two wars for the united states to finally convince the "bully boys" of the british empire that we were a legitimate fully independent country. we didn't like it very much about 50 years later when part of our own country decided they should be independent from us.

people want to be independent from governments that don't accurately represent them,and governments want to hold on to areas they consider their own. the result? war.

a total of 36 years passed between 1776 and 1812. so i guess the argentinians aren't as "ignorant" if you compare them to the british using the same standards.

 

SM I am not sure what you mean, there are glaring differnces between the Falkland conflict & your own War of Indipendence. 1stly I would say that the War of Indipendence was in reality the 1st American Civil War, yes you were in revolt against the legitamate goverment at that time, but also you were fighting your own people as well as those troops shipped in by the British. The Falklands on the other hand was not a situation of the Islanders trying to get rid of a brutal goverment, but of a outside force deciding that because the Islands once belonged to Spain (Given to them by the French) they should now belong to them.
Yet the British have been there as long as the French setting up a garrison in the 1760 I believe, And to add to this, we actualy have a confirmed sighting of the Island by English sailors abord the ship HM Desire in 1592 , we finaly took the entire thing not long after we took Buenos Aires from the Spanish (You might notice in all this there are no mention of Argentinians)
This was a unpravoked land grap that went very badly wrong. It need not have occered as the British Goverment knew in advance that the Argentinians were up to something but ignored it, the same situation happend back in the 1977 when a labour goverment without any fuss just sent a fleet down to the South Atlantic & the thing fizzled out.

Ps forgot to mention that sucssesive goverments have tried everything to get the Islanders to merge with Argentina including taking away citizenship of those who's grandparents were not British born but throught it all they refused, now I do think that this should tell you something about these people who want to remain British.

 

i compared the two because they both involve governments that didn't recognize the sovereignty of a territory that they considered their own. the british lost the american revolution, but didn't view america as a sovereign nation until after the war of 1812...more than 36 years later.

whether or not they're right or wrong, the bottom line is that argentina considers the falklands part of their territory. from aidan's post, i gathered he was calling argentina "ignorant" based on the fact they lost the war and still feel the falklands are part of their territory 25 years later.

argentina's claim might be ridiculous and incomparable to britain's rule over the american colonies...but it still proves my post's point that certain conditions lead to war. people want to be independent, and governments want to keep what they consider theirs.

 

Certainly I would agree totaly with that assesment, I was just unsure of what you meant, your reply could be construed in a couple of ways and once again I would stress that in no way do I consider the people of Argentina Ignorant, I am just sorry that they lost so many people for just trying to prop up a corupt regiem

 

This isn't quite correct. The British government was illegitimate in North America for the reasons pointed out in the Declaration of Independence. If the British hadn't sent troops, it is highly unlikely that there would have been any armed opposition to self government in the "colonies," so this wasn't a civil war. The British choose to make enemies of the colonies, not the other way around, because of their psychological need to "govern." Most Americans wanted to continue peaceful relations and trade with England, but not on the terms that were demanded.

But I also don't see any similarity between the American experience and the Fauklands.

 

How could we be illigal in a country that we founded in the 1st place LOL you revolted agsainst the legitamate goverment of the day. That is the same as saying that if the people of New York decide to declair indipendence from the rest of the US they have that right!!

 

LOL or how about if the people of Louisiana & Alaska called for indipendence as your country bought them from France & Russia without consultating with the locals 1st, or perhaps you om;y look at it as a uprising if it happens to you LOL

 

De Orc,

This answers your question better than I could.

"...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world..."

Regarding the states, the people of Louisiana and Alaska did not call for independence. They petitioned for statehood, and it was granted. If they had not, they would be in the same position as Puerto Rico, which may either petition for statehood or independence any time they wish, but so far have done neither. But this sort of fair treatment is outside of the experience of the British, and I can see where you would be confused. It would be fair for you to suggest that if the people of the Louisiana Territory and Alaska didn't want to become states, the US may have conquered them. In truth, times were such that it was virtually certain because of the economic, political, and social conditions of the time that those territories would be populated through the migration of American citizens who would, with almost 100% certainty, wish to join the US when subsequent conditions permitted it.

That's just the way it was.

 

The British rule of the colonies was, of course, not illegitimate. We were colonies founded by the British and ruled by them. It is as it always has been depicted...a revolution against a legitimate, but unsavory uncompromising, often brutal and tyrannical colonial rule. It is called the Declaration of Independence because we were doing just that, declaring ourselves independent of a colonial master whose rule was no longer tolerable for the reasons stated. To me, it was just like any of the MANY wars for independence from Heavy Handed and often Brutal colonial British Rule...the main difference being we were not oppressed natives but more oppressed colonials of European decent....we were BRITISH SUBJECTS who colonized this land...we werent already living here...we were FOUNDED and developed and ruled by the British...we were not locals being forced to live under british rule...we were brits who, in the course of events, decide not to accept colonial status.

In a manner you can say we declared the rule illegitimate because we felt they were no longer fit to rule us...but without doubt...the British WERE the legitimate rulers of the colonies....they WERE the standing and current government of the colonies and they are recognized as such in the declaration.

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


When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

 

Still doent take away the fact that you Revolted against the rightful rulers of the colonies at that time, the right and wrong of why is not the question. You were a English Colony run for the most part by Englishmen, your Army of the Day was the English Redcoat LOL There was no United States of America prior to your declaration of Indipendence in 1776. As for the Louisiana & Alskan population I never said they asked for anything, I just put forward the fact that you took them without regard for the feelings of the local population (Not saying they are not better off under the rule of the USA)
From 1776 your country went on a course of expansion with no regard for the local indiginouse populations that got in the way, so please dont talk to me about fair treatment you created your own colonies and then turned them into territories and finaly states.
When some decided they no longer wished to belong you forced them into submission by force of arms (Civil War) so again please dont pontificate about how whiter than white your past is.
You have just as many dark secrets as we do in the UK LOL.
To m I look at America as been the 1st country to run a sucesful revolution against a colonial power. and by the way the war of 1812 was a draw check out the treaty of Ghent 1815 LOL

Well put Drusus, and they get no argument from me as to the reasons behind the revolt

 

The British did indeed lose the War for American Independence (it was more a rebellion than a revolution - and I say this as one who had a forefather fight on the American side), but His Britannic Majesty George III did indeed recognize the United States as a sovereign nation at the end of the war in 1783. He was still recognizing them in 1812 when they declared war on him.

Now the British didn't have much respect for the former colonies, and the US was an economic colony, more or less, in 1812. The British were still occupying forts on the American side of the future Canadian border, were still treating with the Indians to cause trouble, and were impressing Americans into the Royal Navy, so the 1812 war was justified.

DeOrc is right though. It was a draw. The US Army was slapped around, mostly by Canadian irregulars. Washington DC was burned by British regulars, and the only battle the US really won was New Orleans, which was fought 3 months after the peace treaty was signed. The US Navy before the war was a non-entity when compared against the might of the Royal Navy, yet the USN did itself a great deal of credit, and won quite a bit.

 

The last battle of the war of 1812 was at Fort Bowyer, situated at the mouth of Mobile Bay, which fell to the British troops on Feb 12, and who then found out on Feb 13 that the war had ended a while back LOL so they gave it back & went home :smile As for anything else nothing realy changed both sides went back to there pre war positions and it was not till 1818 that the borders started to change as for the impressment issue that was now moot as the British had defeated Napolion and no longer required sailors.

 

We revolted alright, but England was no longer the "rightful" ruler. In a very real sense, there is no such thing as a "rightful" ruler of a colony because it violates the principle of self-government. It was a revolt against the existing government, a war for independence, and a revolution in political thinking all at the same time. The Lousiana Territory and Alaska were largely uninhabited when acquired. At least under US jurisdiction the local population had the option of independence or statehood, which would never have happened under the French or Russians at the time. And you are correct that Americans were not and are not saints, and really had a Manifest Destiny view of the North America. Nobody would argue otherwise. Particularly in the case of the native Americans, the cultural differences were too vast, and our thinking too narrow for us to find a compromise solution to that situation. The fault has been admitted. It also took a terrible and bloody war for us to decide whether states could leave the Union once they voluntarily joined to it, and it was decided by force of arms that they could not. To this day, not all Americans agree with that decision, but we get along with each other anyway. Regarding the War of 1812, it was a draw on paper. But King George's goal was to recapture the "colonies," while some Americans hoped to capture Canada, and both sides failed, so we can live with the outcome however you wish to characterize it.

 

america
1) americans make it clear they are independent from great britain
2) britain refuses to recognize sovereignty of something they consider their territory
3) war ensues, and britain loses.
4) 36 years after losing, britain still doesn't recognize the sovereignty of the united states

falklands
1) falkland islanders make it clear they are independent of argentina
2) argentina refuses to recognize sovereignty of something they consider their territory
3) war ensues, and argentina loses
4) 25 years after losing, argentina still doesn't recognize british sovereignty of the falklands

there are plenty of differences, especially the political situations. america declared it's independence from unjust rule. the revolution might never have occurred if britain treated the american colonies as a province instead of as a colony. i.e.- if new yorkers/bostonians were treated the same as residents of manchester/liverpool. but i'm not comparing the american revolution to the illegal invasion of the falklands.

i'm comparing the actions of fighting a war, losing it, and still holding on to false beliefs decades later. aidan called argentina ignorant for it, (a country he hates), so i pointed out that britain did the same thing, (a government he vocally supports & admires). other than the points addressed above, you can't compare the revolution to the falkland invasion. lol...i never meant for this conversation to steer towards justifying the the constitution vs. british crown rule. :headbang:

 

Um on the war of 1812 how could it have been our goal to recapture anything? you declaired war on us not the other way round, we were too busy fighting for our lives against Napolion to realy worry about you guy's after all he had sort of taken over most of Europe at that time. Sure we sent some arms to the local Indians but you did the same, and yes we impressed sailors But please give the British Goverment of the day some Credit, we were streched so thin it was Impossible for us to retake America, we fought that war on land with mainly Canadians, French & Loyalists from the US Former President Jefferson optimistically referred to the conquest of Canada as "a matter of marching." I am afraid to say he and the US Goverment had a nasty suprise.

 

LOL not a worry SM it has been a very interesting discussion :hug:

 

in my opinion, the act of kidnapping american citizens and forcing them to serve in another country's military doesn't constitute recognizing the united states as a legitimate sovereign nation. britain pressed american sailors into his majesty's royal navy to fight their war with france. the philippines used to be a colony of the united states...but we aren't drafting filipino citizens into the army to fight in iraq.

 

Different times, the Navy impressed anyone it could lay its hands on and called them English, if questioned by politicians (and they rarely were) they would claim that the impressed sailors were in fact British Citizens born in places such as Hull, Plymouth etc. Of course the poor sailor had no chance to put his side of the argument, so a blind eye was turned towards it. There is no excuse for it, but I doubt if the thought of Nationality even enterd the thought process of the Admiralty they just wanted bodies.