How many Internet servers are there in the South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands?
Argentina has complained about the continued existence of the Falkland Islands' top-level internet address .fk, according to a local internet users society and other sources. The nation's foreign ministry has written to global domain name overseer ICANN to claim the Falklands belong to Argentina, according to Internauta. "The …
Not a wonderful idea, misleading even. Perhaps you are unaware that USA law gives that government full rights to access to all data on that host? All my recent employers, in Europe, warn the user and require user consent when data is expected or known to pass through USA servers for this and straightforward, legal reasons.
I suggest that most users of a co.uk domain would assume the host is in the UK, subject to it's laws.
"Something about sheep!"
If even their "government" (bloke in a silly hat) host in the UK, then doesn't seem to be many servers
IP Address:188.8.131.52 Reverse-IP | Ping | DNS Lookup | Traceroute
IP Location:United Kingdom - England - Nottingham - Heart Internet Ltd
No one around in 1833 is alive now, nor will have been for many a year. It's amazing some groups insist on perpetuating the same unrecognised claims by teaching generation after generation to cast the same envious eyes and make the same complaints time and again. They just keep relationships at a permanently lower level. Flogged and flogged the horse still does not move, but the action is still used to justify new tragedies from time to time.
I'm English, and live in Argentina. Have done for years.
Get the occasional joke, ie a postman who threatens not to hand over my mail unless I admit the islands are Argentine (they still like Benny Hill here, what can I say), but NEVER any problems.
By and large, everybody loves England over here and reacts with a great deal of pride tempered with disbelief that an English guy has settled here - though it's now getting more common.
I've even asked people what they think of that situation and I've not yet encountered anyone who's even interested in getting the islands "back". People seem to accept that governments just keep digging up the same old thing to try and keep the media on side.
So this post I agree with - the anti-Argentina crowd, you just make the English look a heck of a lot worse than the Argentines. Congratulations.
Obviously the only reason that both governments want control because of the potential oil revenue.
The Falkland Islands and South Georgia would make ideal terminals for super-tankers.
I've been over to Argentina and the people are wonderful. Hardly anybody mentions that unfortunate incident in the Eighties. But if they do, you just have to concede that Argentina had the better team, Maradona was a great player, but it was a handball.
Well that is an interesting post because *I* was beginning to think that perhaps all Argentinians were assholes. But then again, considering how many people there were perfectly willing to reconcile themselves to the junta and for the sake of a small rock with some sheep and few people on it, it is not really easy to believe that that attitude towards the Falklands has really died away to any great degree.
(Note that I am an American.)
nothing like an open-minded American. This kind of thinking is the opposite to the "general" American I mentioned in one of my posts above. The world would be a much better place if decisions would be made based on common sense rather than political and economical reasons.. but we all know that's an impossible utopia ;-)
It is all about oil and mineral rights in the Antarctic.
I read an article written by a women living on the Falklands but originating from Argentina. She mentioned showing groups of visiting Argentinians around (e,g, relatives visiting war graves) and their surprise to find that the locals speak English instead of Spanish and that they are basically, British.
I find the whole Argenine claim mystifying (maybe someone below will enlighten me). A read of wikipedia (which is admittedly open to fiddling) suggests that:
- the nationality of the original discoverer is unknown
- the Dutch probably got in on their maps first
- the Brits renamed it and actually had the first recorded landing (1690)
- the French settled there
- the Brits started a settlement without knowing the French were even there
- the French sold out their claim to the Spanish who kicked the Brits out but then let them back to avoid war
- the Spanish and Brits both left, leaving plaques behind stating claims (1774 for Britain, 1811 for Spain)
- A random ship was blown there and claimed it for the United Provinces of the River Plate, news of which didn't even make it back to Argentina for a year (1820). This despite the fact there was an English guy on the islands at the time, who actually helped the Argentines survive.
- An Argentine settlement was established (1826 - the Brits supported establishing a colony but protested when Argentina named a Governor)
- The Americans kicked them out
- The Argentines set up a penal colony, the head of which lasted 4 whole days before being offed in a mutiny
- The Brits returned and asked the Argetines to lower their flag and many of them left (1833)
- The island is British without much controversy until the UN is set up in 1945, when Argentina stakes a claim.
I can imagine why it would be irritating now that oil has been found but for most of the time it was a pretty harsh rock in the middle of nowhere. There was no native population (all this colonialism nonsense is just stupid) and the vast majority (if not everyone) born there considers themslves British and, more importantly, wants to be British. The Argentine claim has aways looked laughably weak? Spain and the Netherlands could probably draw up a better claim to the place?
In fact, consider this graphic of actual permanent settlement of the island:
No need for the question mark. If an Argentine claim can be pressed, maybe we should revisit whether Argentina should be given back to the Spanish Empire, just to keep everything nice and tidy.
Back in the real world, the people living there want to be governed in some sense or other by Britain, and the Argentine government should stop banging the nationalist drum every time it wants to ride - or whip up - some wave of populism instead of getting its own house in order.
And as far as I am concerned, the day the military dictatorship littered the island with landmines and sent hundreds of ill-trained, ill-equipped conscripts to die for the benefit of the dirty leadership's final dick-waving exercise was the day they renounced any even slightly credible claim to sovereignty over the place.
The problem is it's British by so many metrics.
Who was there first? It was the French, but the French thoroughly support Britain's claim to it- we were there second.
Who has had settlements there the longest? The British.
Whose settlements have most succesfully remained on the islands? The British.
Who has held it militarily? The British.
What do the populace want? British ownership.
Who did the UN decide to recognise as the owners? Britain
Argentina's claims are based on the fact that it is both geographically closer to them, and that Spain handed it to them when Argentina gained independence. The issues with these claims are that Alaska is closer to Canada and Russia than it is America, should Russia be given Alaska back? Should it go to Canada? Should Britain get Ireland back? You can go on and on if you rely merely on geography, it just gets silly and is only one weak factor of many. The latter issue is questionable, was it even Spain's to hand over? the British had been there all along and stayed there even after Spain left, Britain had the earliest claim to the island, and even after Spain handed it over Argentina didn't even try to settle there for years, and when it did it failed miserably through no fault of the British - only a lack of ability to succesfully produce a self-sustaining settlement on behalf of the Argentinians.
On the weight of the issues, it's clearly British, Argentina has two points on which it can argue it's case but those points simply aren't strong enough to outweigh the counterpoints and if they were it opens a massive hornets nest that means we basically need to redraw the entire world map because suddenly Britain can have Ireland back, Russia can have Alaska back, and so on. In fact, if you want to lay a stake on the ownership of your neighbour, then go for it, Germany can have France and Poland back if it wants too.
This is why it's British, this is why it's recognised in international law is British, and this is why Argentina need to get the fuck over themselves and concentrate on fixes their decades of problems rather than using the Falklands as misdirection away from their inability to solve their countless internal issues. It's not our fault you allowed a military junta to screw your country, it's not our fault you defaulted on your debt and became an economic failure. They're your own problems. Your country is geographically solid as is, it's a decent size, and has many very good natural resources - make your country what it could be, a very modern international powerhouse with high levels of education, healthcare, and a decent GDP, rather than fucking around with an argument you've already long lost.
I have a soft spot for Argentina, it's a beautiful country with so much potential, but why do they keep acting like dicks? It's like they want to be hated.
.. I see your point, but you cannot speak of Argentina as a whole when it comes to making these claims. Many Argentines do not support these claims although they would see a move of the islands back to Argentine control as a positive thing. Many (and I mean many) of them feel embarrassed when they hear these claims being made. Bottom line is, when they become a powerhouse (and they once were quite rich indeed), and have something we want, then we'll negotiate. Until then, it's all about who's got the longest d1ck. Nothing more, nothing less.
Also IMHO, I'd recommend being a tad more sensible about the Junta matter. Many people was tortured and killed during those horrific days, certainly not because they "let" them do it.
Is that in the late 70s and just before the war, we were very close to an agreement which would have led to shared sovereignty and may even have led to something very similar to the Hong Kong handover, where to all intents and purposes they were an Argentine territory, but with a degree of self determination, and inherited rights for the islanders to be British Citizens.
The invasion itself was largely a result of the Junta trying to solidify its position with the public by doing something popular, thinking the British wouldn't respond. When we did it effectively put any likely joint sovereignty deal on permanent hold. I can't now see anything happening with the Falkland Islands in my lifetime.
I'm not surprised at this action though since Argentina added regaining sovereignty over the islands into their constitution in 1994.
It was a case of both countries waving their dicks to stop their freefalling popularity. The Junta was pretty much on a low point by 1982, so they needed to do something popular, counting on the UK not responding. What they *didn't* see was that Thatcher was also in a very, very low point and was probably going to lose to Labour, thus *also* needing to do something popular.
Ironically, the Argentines were the ones who ended up better off after the Malvinas/Falklands war; they got to overthrow the Junta, while the UK went on and voted Conservative. So the UK won the war, but ended up getting 10 more years of Thatcher, culminating in Labour turning into "NuLabour".
He's probably under 40 (14?), so has had to rely on the Beeb's reality distortion field for his understanding. Actually, Thatcher sent the task force because it was the morally right thing to do, as opposed to abandoning a few thousand fellow citizens to the mercies of a vile dictatorship - almost all the political and military advice was against* such an action.
And if you think Michael Foot** or (heaven help us) the welsh windbag as PM would have been a better outcome for the UK, you've completely lost touch with reality.
*Understandably, as it came very close to failure, mainly due to lack of airborne early warning - see Lewis Page, passim.
I'm afraid it is you who are misremembering things. Firstly, Thatcher was quite OK supporting vile dictatorships like Chile and its dictator Pinochet. Second, it was Thatcher who denied UK citizenship to Falkland islanders (British Nationality Act 1981). Thirdly, she also planned to strip the islands of their only naval presence - HMS Endurance, and to run-down the garrison. All three were opposed by Labour, who supported the sending of the task force (not many people remember that).
In the late 70's the Argentinians were building up to attack the islands. Callaghan sent a small task force and a nuclear submarine to warn them off. No lives lost, job done.
I suppose that more troops will be sent......but more likely the UK government will just roll-over and give the islands to Argentina.
It's what you get when you elect gutless morons who then give defence to another bigger moron.
Let's face it, we have government by 650 morons....most probably don't know where the Falkland islands are anyway...
A the time the islands were originally settled, it may well have been a good place for oil. The oil in question, of course, being whale oil. The issue of crude oil has not existed until relatively recent history, so rather than a matter of history, it might be more accurate to say it is a matter of modern politics. More to the point though, it is a case of politicians in Argentina making a baseless claim on territory that does not belong to Argentina, and not a lot to do with oil at all. For the UK, the military considerations that come from owning the Falklands / Malvinas are probably more important than any oil.
This is just another in a long list of actions Argentina has taken against the people of these Islands.
Argentina just remember who helped you settle in the southern parts of Argentina, Falkland Islanders, because you knew they were British and Britain would help out with their safety if required!
With the right kind of PR spin was a great little centre piece for the 'then' wobbly government.
yeah most folk couldn’t care less over there but if a Government wants to bring the nation together (as they did then) then with a wee bit of PR spin its a gold mine to those that know no better
Our government does it all the time, most recently with trying to save the world from CO2, opposition parties do it too with local services and all the things that can win them votes, spin up a frenzy over something an everything else just disappears!
The difference back then is that the then government over there were complete nutters an all military based, interestingly quite how we managed to better them is largely down to blind luck, although i find it really interesting that Maggie said if it wasn’t going well for us we were to launch a Polaris (minus its Nuclear warhead) at Buenos Aires! Good ol Maggie, she may have been many things be she didn’t take any crap, that’s for sure :)
As to the History of the Islands themselves, its rather complicated as already pointed out above, They are British only because we've had them so long, but technically there not ours either, but to be honest, the whole argument is mute considering everyone there wants to be with the UK
Interesting take on things, except that PR spin just doesn't really work here - people just don't seem to buy it. From what I hear it didn't bring anybody together then despite that being the intention, and no amount of willy waving about the islands ever brings people together now. Hardly anybody supported the military in government but it's difficult to do anything about them in such a situation, when if they even suspect you will dissent they kill you and sell your children. I've even had a few people suggest to me that the British winning was of benefit as it helped get rid of the military.
There is actually a stand outside the government building that a couple of people in Beatles t shirts set up trying to promote interest in the "England is bad" and "get the Malvinas back" causes and you never see anybody talking to them. Nobody cares about it, no matter what the governments try.
The obsession that people do have with the Malvinas is simply to get compensation for the then-kids and their families who were killed or injured when forced to fight over there by the military government with little to no training. From talking to the islanders themselves you get the picture that the conscripts were in quite a pitiful state before the British military arrived.
Well the History books ive read suggest otherwise, people dont have to agree with something to become pacified by the focus of it, a prime example is Nazi Germany, a very large portion of the people there knew what they were getting in to before, but Hitlers Focus on various issues brought them together, if you were to ask the vast majority if they liked what was going on then the answer for many would be no.
Could they, the govenments, do it again? no, its as unlikely as Germany trying the same move again
I didnt mean to suggest that the people were actively anti english or anything, i was just meaning that if a govenment can distract people from real issues to meet its own agender then it will, and from what i read thats what they tried.
Fortune however wasnt on their side, i wouldnt go as far as saying anyone won that war, its just we had more luck than they did (not discounting all the acts of bravery and service personal who put there lives at risk many of which lost them)
The number of bombs that slammed in to our ships and didnt blow up is staggering, yes thats because we managed to keep their planes low but damn i wouldnt have liked to take bets against those odds!
Hong Kong was leased for 99 years, the lease expired and the Chinese government were not willing to extend the lease. Hence Hong Kong was handed back.
Gibraltar was was "ceded in perpetuity" in 1713 - It's a little late for Spain to ask for it back.
Even if they do, like the Falkland Islanders, the Gibraltarians have expressed the wish (repeatedly, I may add) to remain British citizens.
Oh, and if you were china (I think you really meant Chinese) your English would be better.
This post has been deleted by its author
You can pry the Falklands and Gibraltar out of our cold dead hands.
The Falklands are British and have been British constantly for as long as Argentina has existed as a country.
Gibraltar is British, and has been since Spain ceded it to Britain as reparations in the Treaty of Utrecht. Spain can give back Minorca as well, that is ours too.
Hong Kong was different, we leased the New Territories (the mainland part of HK) from the Chinese for 100 years (1897-1997), and that is where all the fresh water is. Without the NT, there could be no HK, and PRC made it quite clear that they would not renew the lease on the NT.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020