[Colonol Dekker]

I'm heavily biased in this debate. I'm likely to lapse in judgement. So i'm going to hold back and lurk.

[Klaustrophobia]

i'm NOT biased, but i don't know **** about it either.  from my overly-simplistic view, i would say this is up to the people who live there.

[Bob-san]

I can't tell you one right now, out of the top of my head. And I don't need to. I studied a lot of reasons in the past, all of them seemed reasonable to me, but it's been years since I last worried about it. Now it's all in proper documentation we presented in the international bodies.

Feel free to do some research and present your reasons then. Cause your argument at the moment is pretty threadbare.

I on the other hand have looked into it and Argentina seems to want South Georgia because they want South Georgia. There isn't a single legal justification for it that I've ever heard. The argument seems to be "it's ours cause the UK is far away."

Even if you have a point about the Antarctic claim (and I've not checked if you do) trying your own land grab is not an effective defence. If anything it weakens your case for the Antarctic because you've already proved that your country is trying to gain sovereignty over an island like South Georgia you have no claim to whatsoever. Which makes it hard to claim that your argument over the Antarctic isn't simply more of the same.

Even the link Darius posted doesn't go into why the Argentinians consider the land to be theirs. And quite frankly it is ****ing worrying that so many people in Argentina can say that South Georgia is definitely theirs but can't even raise a token defence as to why.

The short answer has a few components.

1) Making new national borders is always a sticky process. Nobody will EVER agree on just where the line should be drawn, and there's ALWAYS grovelling as some border-dwellers feel a stronger cultural connection to the nation on the far side of their borders.
2) Other reasons are geographic; considering that the Falkland Islands and South Georgia are both located in close proximity to Argentina, there is the assumption that it's an island off of the Argentinian mainland and thus should belong to Argentina. Yes, the UK is a long distance off, but like France retains control over some colonial land (France's prime example is French Guiana). Since the UK hasn't seceded control over the Falklands, Argentina feels it's their birthright to claim or reclaim "their" islands.
3) The Falklands have some pretty valuable resources if this geological survey is correct. Combine the possible profits with their own "Manifest Destiny", and you have a new war brewing as the government has reason to try and annex the islands.
4) The islands fall within Argentina's claimed waters and thus should be Argentinian. Were internationally-regonized borders declared, it's likely that Argentina would ignore the line in the ocean as they'd lose significant amounts of land.
5) If they don't have to build the oil rig (or rigs) going to these islands, they can make a scandal out of it now and later claim the "spoils" in a short war.

[el_magnifico]

Feel free to do some research and present your reasons then. Cause your argument at the moment is pretty threadbare.

That's because I'm not even trying to argue. I told you before, as far as I care you can have South Georgia. If you are really curious as to why we claim ownership, there's plenty of material on the internet that explains it (though I have to admit, most of it is in Spanish).

3) The Falklands have some pretty valuable resources if this geological survey is correct. Combine the possible profits with their own "Manifest Destiny", and you have a new war brewing as the government has reason to try and annex the islands.
4) The islands fall within Argentina's claimed waters and thus should be Argentinian. Were internationally-regonized borders declared, it's likely that Argentina would ignore the line in the ocean as they'd lose significant amounts of land.
5) If they don't have to build the oil rig (or rigs) going to these islands, they can make a scandal out of it now and later claim the "spoils" in a short war.

IF the geological survey is correct. It's also possible there is nothing down there. If I remember correctly, Shell conducted a series of short explorations back in 1998 and found nothing. But it's also possible we have those valuable resources closer to continental Argentina. Why haven't we explored then? Because we don't need to. There's already enough in Patagonia to keep us going for many decades. And it's easier to extract.

And again, there are no wars in the plan concerning Malvinas. Short, long, broad or whatever. There's not going to be a war. Period. If you lived here, you would understand what I mean. It's one of the few consistent public policies the Argentine state follows.

[karajorma]

I ask about South Georgia because I'm sure that the claim is bollocks. It basically says a lot about the argument that you can tell me "We definitely own it! I'm certain of it!" but when I ask why, even roughly I get told to look it up. If you can't tell me even vaguely why Argentina has a legitimate claim to South Georgia then maybe you should start questioning your rock solid conviction that it does.

All you've managed to do so far is claim that there is a reason and that international bodies have been told them. The same international bodies who presumably have ignored the claim almost entirely. If they aren't interested in the claim how can you be so certain that they are valid? How do you know that the claim isn't simply propaganda being taught to you?

Yeah I'm British, so yeah I'm biased but I've also looked at the evidence and I'm pretty sure that anyone taking an objective view of the matter can see you don't have a leg to stand on legally to claim South Georgia. Which makes the claim you have a leg to stand on over the Falkland Islands pretty dubious too.

Hell you've pretty much admitted you only claim them so you can make another contested claim in the Antarctic.

4) The islands fall within Argentina's claimed waters and thus should be Argentinian. Were internationally-regonized borders declared, it's likely that Argentina would ignore the line in the ocean as they'd lose significant amounts of land.

You are kidding me right?

South Georgia is over 1000km off the coast of South America!

While it's obvious why the Argentinians want the Falklands and South Georgia. I want an answer for why they think they have a right to them. Pretty much every other conflict in the world of land can have someone give a justification for why they own the land. Occasionally you get one like Iraq's invasion of Kuwait where the justification is obviously we want their land and money.

And that's exactly what is happening here. There is no historical basis for Argentinian ownership of South Georgia. Argentina can't give a legitimate reason for why they should own it cause they don't have one. They simply figured that they could invade and get away with it cause it was too far away for the British to care about.

[el_magnifico]

I ask about South Georgia because I'm sure that the claim is bollocks. It basically says a lot about the argument that you can tell me "We definitely own it! I'm certain of it!" but when I ask why, even roughly I get told to look it up. If you can't tell me even vaguely why Argentina has a legitimate claim to South Georgia then maybe you should start questioning your rock solid conviction that it does.

All you've managed to do so far is claim that there is a reason and that international bodies have been told them. The same international bodies who presumably have ignored the claim almost entirely. If they aren't interested in the claim how can you be so certain that they are valid? How do you know that the claim isn't simply propaganda being taught to you?

Yeah I'm British, so yeah I'm biased but I've also looked at the evidence and I'm pretty sure that anyone taking an objective view of the matter can see you don't have a leg to stand on legally to claim South Georgia. Which makes the claim you have a leg to stand on over the Falkland Islands pretty dubious too.

Hell you've pretty much admitted you only claim them so you can make another contested claim in the Antarctic.

Look, I don't want to sound harsh, but I don't like to repeat myself. If I remember correctly (and I probably don't, since I studied it when I was a child), the claim was based on the fact that back then they were administered as a dependency of the Malvinas/Falklands.
If as you say the claim is bollocks, then it will be dismissed, and you have nothing to worry about.

However, even without considering South Georgia, our claims over Antarctica still overlap (remember, we have continental land in the northern Misiones province to extend from).

[karajorma]

Antarctic claims are a much dodgier ground because it's pretty hard to prove that any of them are legitimate since they are only recognised by the other countries making a claim (or as in this case, not even then!).

As for the rest, you have affirmed a concrete belief that the Falklands and South Georgia are rightfully Argentinian property but you're unable to give any indication as to why you believe this.

Now I believe that a sensible person should question his convictions. Especially whenever they can't actually explain why they hold them. If you don't wish to do that, it is your choice.

[el_magnifico]

Antarctic claims are a much dodgier ground because it's pretty hard to prove that any of them are legitimate since they are only recognised by the other countries making a claim (or as in this case, not even then!).

And they are unimportant now, since we are discussing the Malvinas.

As for the rest, you have affirmed a concrete belief that the Falklands and South Georgia are rightfully Argentinian property but you're unable to give any indication as to why you believe this.

Now I believe that a sensible person should question his convictions. Especially whenever they can't actually explain why they hold them. If you don't wish to do that, it is your choice.

In fact, you have induced some doubts into me regarding the status of South Georgia and the Sandwich islands.
It is nonetheless unimportant, since I still don't care about who owns them at the end.

You see, Karajorma, everyone in this world can be wrong. You can be wrong, I can be wrong. That's the reason courts exist, to settle disputes between parties who honestly believe their rights have been violated (the fact they are usually used for other purposes is irrelevant in this case).

I know you don't hold any bad intentions. You indeed seem to be a very reasonable person.
To me, it's been an honour to discuss with you.

[karajorma]

In fact, you have induced some doubts into me regarding the status of South Georgia and the Sandwich islands.

That's pretty much all I could ask for.

You see, Karajorma, everyone in this world can be wrong. You can be wrong, I can be wrong. That's the reason courts exist, to settle disputes between parties who honestly believe their rights have been violated (the fact they are usually used for other purposes is irrelevant in this case).

Yes but why does this need to go to court? Only because people in Argentina (and the UK for that matter) never challenge their beliefs over who owns them. You made the point that Argentina is now a democracy and not a dictatorship. So if it is then swaying popular opinion is important. That's not going to happen just cause of my posts on this forum but the simple fact is that the more Argentinians who actually look up the reasons, the more who'll say "I never realised we had such a poor claim on it"

While I'm at it, what really annoys me is the image of UK as a colonial power who doesn't want to give anything back. I think the fact that Hong Kong was returned as well as the sheer amounts of talks over Northern Ireland speaks volumes about that.

I know you don't hold any bad intentions. You indeed seem to be a very reasonable person.
To me, it's been an honour to discuss with you.

It's always nice to meet someone willing to challenge their assumptions during a debate. Unfortunately far to many people here on HLP go into a discussion certain they are correct and unwilling to hear any arguments to the contrary.

[TESLA]

Fair balls to the Argentinians.

Dont see how Britain can lay a claim to an island so far away from its shores and only just East from Argentina.

Just seems like hanging on the old image of Empire from the 19th and early 20th century.

Anyhow, dont think the British could take on the Argentinians with the British forces bogged down in Afganistan, and I think the Argentinians know it.

[NGTM-1R]

Dont see how Britain can lay a claim to an island so far away from its shores and only just East from Argentina.

'cuz no Argentinians have lived there in a very long time, and just as icing on the cake the people who do live there don't want to be from Argentina. They want to be Brits.

Just seems like hanging on the old image of Empire from the 19th and early 20th century.

Self-determination says this argument is a load of bollocks, to use a more culturally appropriate term.

[Colonol Dekker]

Anyhow, dont think the British could take on the Argentinians with the British forces bogged down in Afganistan, and I think the Argentinians know it.

You reckon?
Because of course Afghan is a hotspot for naval exercise. Terry Taliban is know to operate in the oceans and we of course sent EVERY single soldier we have to the theatre of operation. 
 
 
I'd like to see them try.

[karajorma]

Dont see how Britain can lay a claim to an island so far away from its shores and only just East from Argentina.

Try actually reading the history of the islands before commenting then.

[MR_T3D]

Anyhow, dont think the British could take on the Argentinians with the British forces bogged down in Afganistan, and I think the Argentinians know it.

You reckon?
Because of course Afghan is a hotspot for naval exercise. Terry Taliban is know to operate in the oceans and we of course sent EVERY single soldier we have to the theatre of operation. 
 
 
I'd like to see them try.

if they did try, what do you reckon your odds would be for getting shipped out...?
and how would you feel?
just curious.

[Kosh]

Dont see how Britain can lay a claim to an island so far away from its shores and only just East from Argentina.

Britain once laid claim to 1/4 of the Earth, not all of it has broken away.

[Colonol Dekker]

Anyhow, dont think the British could take on the Argentinians with the British forces bogged down in Afganistan, and I think the Argentinians know it.

You reckon?
Because of course Afghan is a hotspot for naval exercise. Terry Taliban is know to operate in the oceans and we of course sent EVERY single soldier we have to the theatre of operation. 
 
 
I'd like to see them try.

if they did try, what do you reckon your odds would be for getting shipped out...?
and how would you feel?
just curious.

 
Fair chance. But to be honest, i'd more than likely be in Afghan.
 
And my POV is summed up. I've been burned, blown up and shot at in my career and i'd redo it every single time.

[Bob-san]

Dont see how Britain can lay a claim to an island so far away from its shores and only just East from Argentina.

Britain once laid claim to 1/4 of the Earth, not all of it has broken away.

Or was lost due to a war or liberated by Britain. Remember; you may lay claim to land, but the claim needs to be proven.

[karajorma]

Britain once laid claim to 1/4 of the Earth, not all of it has broken away.

Like Texas? Or Hawaii?

Cause you can make arguments for both of them breaking away from the US. Doesn't mean that they're valid.

[TESLA]

Dont see how Britain can lay a claim to an island so far away from its shores and only just East from Argentina.

Try actually reading the history of the islands before commenting then.

Im very up to-date on my history actually. And I do believe that Britain justs want to keep its claim to the island because of the possibility of oil. It suited Maggie Thatcher to fight for them in the war to help her popularity and take the focus off problems in her home country.

Anyhow, dont think the British could take on the Argentinians with the British forces bogged down in Afganistan, and I think the Argentinians know it.

You reckon?
Because of course Afghan is a hotspot for naval exercise. Terry Taliban is know to operate in the oceans and we of course sent EVERY single soldier we have to the theatre of operation.  
 
 
I'd like to see them try.

news channels like Sky and BBC are making it very clear that there is a cronic shortage of funding in the navy and defence cuts. Your Royal Navy needs more than the current 2.2% GDP for its current commitments, and thats without the Trident or RN carriers being replaced. (think they are safe at the moment though?)

Dont see how Britain can lay a claim to an island so far away from its shores and only just East from Argentina.

Britain once laid claim to 1/4 of the Earth, not all of it has broken away.

Im sure the locals had a problem with that. While not all countrie had a problem with the Empire, many did, such are Ireland, American Colonists, India, parts of Africa, etc. Wasnt exactly one happy empire now. (Unless you were running the show)

[karajorma]

Dont see how Britain can lay a claim to an island so far away from its shores and only just East from Argentina.

Try actually reading the history of the islands before commenting then.

Im very up to-date on my history actually. And I do believe that Britain justs want to keep its claim to the island because of the possibility of oil. It suited Maggie Thatcher to fight for them in the war to help her popularity and take the focus off problems in her home country.

And the fact that almost the entire population of the islands consider themselves British escaped your notice?