2006-10-27 01:38:32 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Embassies & Consulates
and the ULSTER is the second one?
2006-10-27 08:36:37 · update #1
Does buenos aires ( Argentina) belong to Switzerland?
it is the same. my relatives have lived there for ages..
2006-10-28 04:46:46 · update #2
Falkland islands are Argentine (Spanish name is "Islas Malvinas"), but after the British invasion 100 years ago, are administrated by the British gov.
I think that administration is a good one.
2006-10-28 04:31:32 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
If you mean are the Falkland Islands Argentine ? Then No they are Not.
The Falkland Islands are a UK territory and will remain so until it is agreed that the people living there want it to be anything else.
The History of the Islands is quite unremarkable , until it became clear that there was a possibility of Oil , the invasion prompted a response that was not particularly nice for all concerned ; but given the current population is about 2,500 people it would be an easy task to administer and certainly would not be better administered by Argentina.
If you believe that Argentina should run the Islands , you probably believe that they should belong to Argentina too .
Another attack / invasion would not be a good idea next time it could be much worse with the Mainland being targeted , War who needs it !
2006-10-27 01:58:14 · answer #2 · answered by diycolin 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
What are you asking? I think you need to re-phrase this question.
The Falklands are British and its people are British. Whether or not Argentina could "administrate" them better is beside the point.
Argentina might even be able to "administrate" the UK better than the labour government - but I wouldn't want them to!
The idiot who asked this question has replied to me in Spanish suggesting that if I don't speak the language I shouldn't ask the question. Well, I do speak Spanish and other languages.
Also:
British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands and Dependencies rests on a secure historical and legal foundation. In 1690 the British, led by Captain Strong, made the first recorded landing on the Falkland Islands, which had no indigenous population before the arrival of settlers in the second half of the eighteenth century. The first British settlement was established in 1766. But up to 1833 there was a period of some confusion, when France, Britain, Spain and then the Buenos Aires Government at various times established small, local settlements, none of which endured for more than a few years.
Apart from having a small settlement and penal colony for a short period on the Islands before 1833 (the greater part of this was ejected for 'piracy' by the United States Navy in 1831) Argentina's claim to the Islands is based mainly on her having been a successor to the Spanish Viceroyalty of the River Plate, which also governed most of modern Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia and Chile. In 1833 the British resumed control of the Islands, and from that date they have been in open, continuous, effective and peaceful possession, occupation and administration. The British people who came to live there thereafter became the first permanently established population of the Islands.
Paco you are a real ****!
2006-10-27 01:43:58 · answer #3 · answered by costa 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
There is little if any public corruption in the Falkland Islands. That in itself is something rare in South America.
The sad thing about the Falklands is that institutional corruption of the financial services industry led to the problems that made its takeover at least theoretically feasible by Galtieri: the Falkand Islands Company was taken over by Coalite, which in turn was taken over and asset-stripped by the Slater Walker Group -- which had close connections with the Government, through Walker.
The fact remains that the inhabitants of the Falklands would never consent to being governed by Argentina, and the only way that Argentina could have taken over the islands is by killing or deporting them.
2006-10-27 02:34:45 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
The Falklands is a British territory and does not belong to Argentina. If you remember we went to war over the Falklands and defeated them. The Falklands population still want to be a part of Britain. So your question is irreverent.
2006-10-27 01:44:24 · answer #5 · answered by hakuna matata 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
The argentinians cannot even administer their own
country properly so what are you talking about.
In any case there are no argentinians in the Falklands
only Brits and they have inhabited the islands for a
century or so. The Argentine government was in turmoil
at the time and decided to attack the Falklands for
their own political stability in other words a diversion.
The song, "Don't Cry For Me, Argentina" should give
a fairly accurate account of the Argentine Govt.
2006-10-27 02:10:37 · answer #6 · answered by CAPTAIN BEAR 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
It goes back about 100 years ago we won the Falkland's in a good old BRITISH battle (as we are the best army in the world ) then and now ,as we won it came down to that it now belongs to us in an agreement with the Argentines that could not be broken so it would be better run by us
2006-10-27 02:25:05 · answer #7 · answered by Steven E 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The Falklanders themselves want British rule,
No one is making them decide UK or Argentina
They do not want to be part of the Argentina dictatorship
2006-10-27 02:08:44 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
yes they are, our relatives have been living out there for years, if it wasn`t administrated like it is now, there would be no protection. Britain rests its case on its long-term administration of the Falklands, and on the principle of self-determination for the islanders, who are almost all of British descent.
2006-10-27 01:53:09 · answer #9 · answered by lyne1x 1 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I'm making assumptions due to your English, But the Falklands are British, and I guess if you ask any of the inhabitants, they are glad that their administration is British and not Argentine
2006-10-27 01:46:42 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋