You presuppose intellectual honesty on his part. If Pinochet still ruled Chile he'd be on the Argentine side in the Beagle conflict. Hell, if Argentina claimed Rockall he's support it.

And there was no "India" before the British conquest and no Malaysia or Indonesia. There were still people living there prior to their "discovery" by Europeans. There was no transplanting of settlers from thousands of miles away coupled with a strong military garrison.

"You presuppose intellectual honesty on his part."

Because you & Fulham are the paragons of objectivity and dispassionate analysis. Shut up. This seems to happen every time you inject Invictus or Fulham into a 'debate', they have to make everything nasty & personal, can never debate things on the merits.

"Flogging a dead horse there I am afraid my friend."

Still waiting for an answer as to why you're a blind nationalist who never criticizes anything Britain does, ever. Even the concentration camps get a pass.

Make things personal? You call people Nazis in threads on the reg.

I meant only an existence as a united polity. The Muslims in the south had little to do with the Catholics in the north and center. Is that so controversial?

"Absolutely Invictus, I have already made this point and it was ignored. Thank you for bringing it up again."

You weren't ignored, this point has already been addressed several times. Evidently you two can't do anything but repeat the same point over and over again. The British packed up and left of their own accord. They came back and used brute force to evict the Argentines. The Argentines evicted nobody.

But back to the main point of mine, why is the Spanish and Argentine claim so water tight when the islands were discovered by the Dutch, first settled by the Spanish, and the British were present, though not established, before France gave the islands to Spain?

Since the whole Argentine claim rests on a legal claim, that seems like a big question. Perhaps there's merit to it, and the ICJ should be able to exhaustively research the issue and settle it once and for all from a legal standpoint.

But that still doesn't address the issue of the people! They don't want to become Argentines. How can you get around that?

*first settled by the French

@ Invictus: They don't need to loose their nationality. Millions of foreigners live in Argentina with no problem whatsoever, and if living in our country is not their cup of tea, they can go to the UK (probably with a generous monetary reward), but they are in no way to be forced out.

Under that logic why don't you just annex Uruguay and give them the same deal?

@ Invictus: You can't keep jumping from argument to argument.

The answer to the question you asked before is the one I've given. If you want to reargue something else, so, but you're going on a falacial tangent.

How have I jumped to a different argument?

You want me to adress the issue of the people, regardless of the validity of the territorial claim.

You asked how I get around the fact that the kelpers don't want to be Argentinian.

I answered that they didn't have to.

Your reply was "Why not annex Uruguay too?".

The answer is: Because we don't have a sustained claim to the territory, that's why! We were leaving the topic of the territorial claim aside to discuss the issue of the people of the Falklands. And you went on a tangent talking about a territory we have no claim over to ridicule my statement.

But how would they not be Argentinian if the islands were ruled by Argentina? You say they don't have to, but how can they not be if they are governed by the Argentine government? They don't want to be part of Argentina. It's that clear. I really don't understand what you mean.

I would think there's at least as strong of a claim to Uruguay as the Falklands. Uruguay was part of the same viceroyality from which the claim to the Falklands descends. Argentine governments ruled over the area, to varying degrees of effectiveness, at points in history. Longer, probably, than the Spanish ruled the Falklands. If the Falklanders can be legitimately incorporated into Argentina against their will then why not Uruguayans? After all, foreigners live so happily in Argentina proper. See what I mean?

@Invictus: If I don't recall wrong, this site is filled with British people living in Asia, Asians living in USA, south americans living in Europe...

You don't loose your nationality just because you're living in a different country.

I won't dignify your Uruguay example with an answer, you're being either quite stupid or trolling, but look up a history book. Wikipedia would do too.

We're working with different definitions of nationality. You speak of an ethnic nationality, I speak of a civic one. The Falklanders would have Argentine passports and be Argentine citizens, and it's been clear that they don't want that. Unless of course you're saying the Falklanders wouldn't have Argentine citizenship...

The Uruguay example is supposed to be ridiculous. It illustrates how ridiculous it is to think that it's a legitimate thing to do to impose Argentine administration on a group of people who clearly don't want it.

I speak of a civic nationality.

Many people in Argentina have a double nationality. Many people in Argentina have all the civic rights granted to the even though they are not of Argentinian nationality.

A coworker of mine, argentinian by birth yet italian by ascendancy, votes on the Italian elections every year although he has set foot on Italy maybe three times in his life.

Then I'm completely confused by what you say. The Falklanders don't want double nationality. They want to continue to be governed by Britain. How is it not colonialism for a state to force its rule over a people that doesn't want it?

Oh, so you're talking about who rules you, not about your nationality?

I'm sorry, but you're not allowed to choose under wich country's rule you are, unless you're willing to be located in a place where that country rules.

You kind of are. Ever heard of self-determination?

Unless you think I can get together 300 Argentinians, move here:http://www.weymouth-dorset.co.uk/tyneham.html and demand to be allowed to be under Argentinian rule.

The difference is that British rule has been uninterrupted (apart from the war) since 1833. The people have lived there for generations. That matters.

Loke I said earlier, how much time does an occupation have to last until it's not an occupation anymore?

When will Cuba stop having a claim on Guantanamo?

Never. It's a lease.

How much time does an occupation have to last till its not an occupation? I don't know an exact number, but it happens. Don't take this the wrong way, but as an Argentine I assume at least some of your heritage, if not all, comes from Europe. Are you an occupier? Am I, a white American? Are Russians in Vladivostok occupiers? Han Chinese in Inner Mongolia? Turks in Asia Minor? Any non-Celt in England?

The British have controlled the Falklands longer than the Spanish ever did. The Falklanders have lived there longer than anyone ever, since the islands were uninhabited at discovery. That sure seems like a pretty strong claim on the grounds of self-determination.

JECE, your claim that Australia was close to leaving the Commonwealth in 1999
is incorrect and frankly, ridiculous.

There is an ongoing debate within Australia about becoming a republic,
but it is about having an Australian head of state, and has nothing to do with
leaving the Commonwealth, in fact the best way to lose a referendum here would
be to suggest that we leave the Commonwealth.

Currently Queen Elizabeth 2 is our head of state, and she is highly regarded
and much loved here. ( Camilla's not such a hit with us, what was Charlie thinking )

There has been significant change over time, for example, the British Parliament
can no longer enact Legislation that would apply in Australia, as was once the case.

The Australian High Court is the "supreme" judicial authority in Australia, there was a
long period when the British High court(s) and / or the privy council were the highest
judicial authority for Australia.

We also have our own Australian "honours" system to recognise the achievments
of our citizens, again, for a long time, Australians were awarded British honours only.

Incidentally, I think the last person to be knighted by a British Monarch
"on the field of battle" was the Australian General, Monash in world war one
and also incidentally, he was of Jewish "extraction or heritage"

For a long time British persons were appointed to our vice regal posts, eg
Governor General, and State Governors, that ceased some time back, and
the Australian government selects & recomends the candidate(s) for these positions.
and their endorsment for vice regal posts by the Queen has become a simple
formality.
Currently we have a lady Governor General, and lady Prime Minister.
Australian citizens have held our vice regal positions for decades.
we have just laid to rest Sir Zelman Cowen, a former Governor General who was
of "Jewish / Australian" heritage.

there is NO way we will be leaving the Commonwealth in the forseeable future.

We have our own special relationship with "the Poms" (our affectionate nick name
for citizens of the United Kingdom ) some say it comes from the term " prisoner(s)
of (her) majesty ('s govt)"

Ask any Britsh or Australian sports fan what is the greatest success a sportsman
from the UK or Australia could achieve, and leading their national cricket team
to a 5 nil Ashes series win would probably get a mention.

The "Ashes" cricket test series are held every 2 years and it is a competition
between the "Poms" and the "Aussies" only.
India, the West Indies and others do not get to compete for the "Ashes".

regarding this seabed stuff,
The island of Papua to the north of Australia is split in two by an artificial border,
the eastern half plus some other small islands is the independent nation of
Papua New Guinea, and the western half is part of the Indonesian nation.

It can be easily demonstrated that the island of Papua is part of the Australian
continent, the Torres straits are very shallow, probably less than 50 metres deep,
certainly less than 100 metres deep.

It is also fairly clear that the native Papuans do not want the Indonesians to have
sovereignty over western Papua, and that the government of PNG leaves a fair bit
to be desired with regard to it's stability, competence and standards of governance.

Many Papuans cross through the islands in the Torres straits and go to Queensland
(the Australian state ) to seek medical treatment and other services.

If we applied the "logic" of this under the sea "link" then Australia could "annexe"
Papua.

That is just not even a topic of discussion here, there is broad support here, politically,
for us to continue to provide substantial & ongoing assistance to Papua New Guinea,
so that PNG can remain an independent nation, and improve it's performance with
regard to govt competence, governance & stability.

Incidentally there are huge natural resources in and around PNG

Many Australians like having Queen Elizabeth 2 as our head of state,
she doesn't reside here, only visits occasionally, stays out of our politics
(Governor General Kerr was a drunk and an abberation- this refers to his
dismissal of the Whitlam govt in the 1970's )
and the British taxpayer pays for her "maintenance & upkeep"
so we think we get a bargain, the "ideal head of state"
Queen "Lizzie" 2 is well mannered, polite, well spoken, caring and lives in the UK ,
she is the "perfect head of state" for many of us here in Australia.

Looking at the Russian, or French models, where Presidents get involved in politics,
cost the taxpayer a fortune to support etc etc, I think we are on a winner with
Queen "Lizzie" 2
Russia and France both have a President and Prime Minister,
the American model has no Prime Minister, and the Leader of the Congress' role &
powers cannot be compared to those of a Prime Minister in the English, French,
Russian, Canadian, or Australian models.

I don't know who you hang out with Major Mitchell but most of the people I know are at best ambivalent to Betty 2. There is no reason why she should be our head of state and why Australia should be part of the Commonwealth. It is would be quite possible here to create a President that had the same level of power as the Queen/GG has at the moment.
The Commonwealth provides no benefits apart from some imaginary 'brotherly' feeling between nations that are quite different.

"There is no reason why she should be our head of state and why Australia should be part of the Commonwealth."

Well we did have a referendum not that long ago and becoming a republic was rejected. I don't think leaving the Commonwealth has ever been on the table as a serious proposal.
Personally I am indifferent to whether or not we retain the Queen, but I all in favour of remaining in the Commonwealth. I think most Australians feel a strong affinity with the British. But I am an anglo-Australian so I might feel that more strongly than someone who is from a different background.

my response to Mr Largeham:
firstly, please show some respect, it's Queen Betty 2, not plain "Betty 2"

and am I right or wrong if I put forward the proposition that most Australians are
more concerned about the selection / composition and performance of our national
cricket team & who has the captaincy than changing our head of state ???

Regarding the change of head of state, our politicians have clearly shown their
preference to have a head of state who is chosen by them, where as the Australian
public clearly wants to elect a head of state themselves.

The problem of a politically active President, or head of state in our sort of system
(where you have a Prime Minister, compared to the American model ) cannot be
ignored.
Imagine the chaos if we had a labour govt in the house of rep's, a senate where the
greens and independents have the "balance of power" and a conservative President,
eg Tony Abbott,

or the chaos if Tony Abbott was PM & a conservative govt with a Senate where
labour & the independents & greens have the majority with Bob Brown as President
and politically active.

There are all those historical reasons why the British monarch is our head of state,
you choose to ignore them ??? Whether they are as relevant today as they once
were is, of course, debatable.

Plus you cannot deny that having the taxpayers of the UK providing the funding to
support their head of state and ours, in the same person, saves us a stack of money.

Imagine if we had a President who liked foreign travel in the manner of Kevin Rudd,
flitting about the globe in first class commercial, or with a taxpayer funded RAAF
luxury jet, and staying at top class luxury hotels, you want to help pay for that ???

your comment that most of the people you know are ambivalent about keeping
Queen Lizzie 2 as our head of state tells us that they see no great need for change.

Spyman reinforces this view when he says he is indifferent as to whether or not we
retain the Queen as our head of state.

"if it isn't broken, with obvious faults, why try to fix it ?"

How about a model where we all elect our politicians to the House of Reps
and the Senate, and we have a separate election where only our indigeneous
brothers and sisters vote for a President ???

perhaps we should start a separate topic, this is, or was, a discussion about the
ludicrous Argentinian claim for soveriegnty over the FALKLAND (NOT Malvinas)
islands