[MP-Ryan]

We have a case.

No, you don't.  International law and precedent say that the right to self-determination trumps all.  This is why democracies like Canada and the UK have to put up with regular separatist stirrings by portions of their populations (Quebec / Scotland).  It's why Northern Ireland is still UK territory.  It's why Taiwan has international recognition.

Argentina doesn't have a case.  The islands are populated with UK citizens and have been since 1833.  They - the current inhabitants - are the owners of the islands; they have the right to self-determination; they have repeatedly said they have no interest in being citizens of Argentina.  Hence why the rest of the democratic world collectively shakes its head every time this issue comes up.

The text of UN resolution 2065, passed in 1964, also bears mentioning (emphasis mine):

UN Resolutions

Resolution 2065 (XX)

Question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)

16 December 1965

The General Assembly,

Having examined the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas),

Taking into account the chapters of the reports of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples relating to the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), and in particular the conclusions and recommendations adopted by the Committee with reference to that Territory,

Considering that its resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 was prompted by the cherished aim of bringing to an end everywhere colonialism in all its forms, one of which covers the case of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas),

Noting the existence of a dispute between the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning sovereignty over the said Islands,

1.  Invites the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to proceed without delay with the negotiations recommended by the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples with a view to finding a peaceful solution to the problem, bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas);

2.  Requests the two Governments to report to the Special Committee and to the General Assembly at its twenty-first session on the results of the negotiations.

1514 is here:  https://www.un.org/en/decolonization/declaration.shtml

It's predominant message is the right to self-determination.

So I'll repeat myself to make it quite clear:  under international law, Argentina does not have a case.  If the islanders change their mind, that's up to them, not Argentina.

[el_magnifico]

Hold it everyone! I'm sorry to jump back in the discussion, but a new thought has occurred to me that might render all of my previous thoughts ultimately irrelevant.
An interesting question no one ever asks himself in these discussions isn't why or how Argentina plans to get ahold of the islands, but rather how Argentina plans on holding them without the islanders sympathy.*
Note that this is not recognizing that they have a legitimate claim for the islands out of supposed self-determination, but rather about the practicalities of keeping the islands productive under the rule of a government that may be every bit as good and democratic as their current one, or maybe even better, but that they ultimately might feel that doesn't represent them. This also isn't about hostility TO the islanders (that was already discussed with Flipside). This is about hostility FROM the islanders rendering any effort Argentina or the UK might put into integration with the mainland moot. Without the help of the other two actors (the UK and the islanders), or at least from the islanders alone, Argentina could find itself governing a rebellious rock plagued with political and logistical problems. And our current strategy, even if we're right about our rightful sovereignty over the land, may ultimately prove to be useless.
Perhaps our current strategy is a flawed one, and we've been looking at this problem the wrong way all this time. Discussion about Argentina's case, UK's case, or the islanders' right of self-determination, might as well be pointless.

*: I seem to remember Machiavelli wrote about the long-term “unconquerability” of republics in The Prince. He could have been either right or wrong, but he did have a good point.

[Phantom Hoover]

His conduct certainly won at least one friend, this is clearly a very charged issue and I think he's been (everyone's been) remarkably civil.

That's the thing, despite the discussion having been completely civil so far el_magnifico has remarked every other post about how it always degenerates into name calling and he's so used to being the only intelligent person in the conversation.

[karajorma]

Presumably he's discussed it many times on other forums and had forgotten that HLP tries to stick with reasoned debate.

@el_magnifico that is a good point. It is pretty doubtful the Argentinians would ever manage to hold the islands. The second they were handed back the islanders would almost certainly declare independence from Argentina. The question then becomes what would they do? Cause quite frankly there is nothing they could do that wouldn't be worse than what they accuse the British of having done.

[Davros]

Too late. Someone already made that joke before.

Checks through thread
No they didnt

[headdie]

Too late. Someone already made that joke before.

Checks through thread
No they didnt

I think it turned up in the last thread

[QuantumDelta]

His conduct certainly won at least one friend, this is clearly a very charged issue and I think he's been (everyone's been) remarkably civil.

That's the thing, despite the discussion having been completely civil so far el_magnifico has remarked every other post about how it always degenerates into name calling and he's so used to being the only intelligent person in the conversation.

Which personally I find to almost be a form of antagonism. I'm somewhat miffed that he went to great lengths to talk about a side comment, and forward the fact that REAL peoples lives and histories don't matter. Only some strange sense of governmentally installed perspective does.
If someone wandered over to me and told me they now owned my house because THEY THINK THEY SHOULD, with no other legal, tangible reason why, I'd probably punch them in the face until they changed their mind.

The fact that Argentina want to take the Falklands as part of their manifest destiny with no regards to what ever else happens, and throwing statements out about "British Colonialism" (something which really, doesn't exist anymore, and hasn't for ages?) when they're behaving with classic examples of it.
All at the expense of the people on the island. Who have lived there for hundreds of years.
Invasions.
Minefields.
Sanctions.
Blockades.
Being treated as objects rather than people.
Being seen as owned rather than independent.
The mentality that the islanders have no human rights.

Yea, Argentina should totally 'administrate' or whatever the hell they want to do with the Falklands, they've proven they'll be brilliant at it.
All under the reasoning that they feel they should own it.
Nothing else.

That's why they never go before the ICJ.
Edit;

The question then becomes what would they do? Cause quite frankly there is nothing they could do that wouldn't be worse than what they accuse the British of having done.

Which is probably why as it stands they'll never change their minds about being "British".

[el_magnifico]

His conduct certainly won at least one friend, this is clearly a very charged issue and I think he's been (everyone's been) remarkably civil.

That's the thing, despite the discussion having been completely civil so far el_magnifico has remarked every other post about how it always degenerates into name calling and he's so used to being the only intelligent person in the conversation.

Exactly what Karajorma said. Besides, it isn't always the UKers who start the unreasonability and name calling. (Pirates is an usual one from we Argies, sheep-****ers also gets hurled every now and then.)
Also, if I would really have thought this thread was full of idiots and there was nothing to gain, I wouldn't even have bothered to spend hours writing and documenting my post (yes, each one of those long and documented posts takes away at least 2-3 hours of my life to write).
And there was indeed something gained. I'm starting to believe that, whether our case is right or not, we may be missing the whole point anyway. Perhaps I (we) have indeed been wrong in this approach. So far for my supposed ego blinding me.

Whether you like it or not, discussions are made of two or more sides confronting opinions and thinking the other one is probably wrong. And discussion about contentious issues like this one tend to get ugly everywhere (you should really see how ugly discussion about this can get, even within Argentines themselves, when unreasonable people are around). If you expect me to not defend my case and to not be wary about the probability of everything going to hell, well... sorry, but that won't happen.

Finally, in a thread that's been both civil and productive, you're going out of your way to find something negative to remark. I don't understand why you do that.

---

Karajorma:

Cases like that one have been solved in the past through referendum or mutual agreement when relations between Argentina and the other nation were good.
I agree, I can clearly see the islands would at the very least demand special status if they were to be handed back. So any successful long-term recovery of the islands would need more subtlety than simply presenting our case.

---

QuantumDelta:
I just want to point out that I also addressed your other points in the rest of my posts. Many of those sections where directed to more than one person. I had to organize them in that way to avoid over-quoting (something for which I've been criticized before.)

[Al-Rik]

I don't believe any Politician in Europe would support Argentinan claims.
It would open Pandoras Box, because during and after World War II almost every Country in Middle and Eastern Europe has had to suffer the lose of Territories and the expulsion of the millions of People living there ( Germans from Poland, Poles from the Soviet Union, Germans from Italy, Italians from Slovenia,... ect. ).

That was just 70 years  ago, and no sane person want to dig out that monster from it's grave by changing borders because on some forgotten Islands at the end of the world 200 years ago some hundred Spanish / French / whatever guys have been expelled.
Russia and China also doesn't seem to like to create an example for claims that may justify claims against Russia (some Nations in the Caucasus) or China (Tibet)...

But personally it just admit the Chutzpah to fight against colonialism by claiming rights dating back to the Spanish Colonialism

[karajorma]

Pirates is an usual one from we Argies

Ironic since it was a privateer who claimed the islands in the name of Argentina in the first place.

Cases like that one have been solved in the past through referendum or mutual agreement when relations between Argentina and the other nation were good.
I agree, I can clearly see the islands would at the very least demand special status if they were to be handed back. So any successful long-term recovery of the islands would need more subtlety than simply presenting our case.

I think the Argentinians have to realise they are not getting the Falklands back this generation and that every time they try to claim that the islands are theirs they only succeed in pushing back any chance of it happening another few years. Again, how many Argentinians would listen to the arguments of native tribes who said "We were here first, therefore we own the whole of Argentina, it belongs to us, not you"

The simple fact is that the islands are not theirs at all. At the very least they are 1/2 British since the British were the first to colonise half of the Islands. And while Argentina continue to claim that they own all the islands they'll never get anywhere.

[Flipside]

Actually from a socio-political point of view it's interesting, because part of the reason the people of Argentina threw out the military regime and created their own government was because the regime not only invaded the Falklands, but lost the fight over them, that weakened them enough to be overpowered.

It is strange to think that, had that war been won, Argentina would most likely be a lot less Democratic and have a lot less Freedom than it does now. I'm not saying that the UK 'freed' Argentina or anything silly like that, but it IS worth noting that it was the failure of the invasion that put the current Government and Political system where it is now.

[Colonol Dekker]

Too late. Someone already made that joke before.

Checks through thread
No they didnt

I think i did in the last one, i certainly knew it beforehand
If not..... I relinquish all claims to the above statement.

[Davros]

Your lucky, I was just about to send a task force to liberate the joke...