Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SUBMAN1
ANy other way and Argentineans will feel angry and left out.
|
As they have for the past 180 years. I can hear their doctor from here:
"Take 200 mg of Suckitup and call me in the morning."
Spain is still pissed about Gibralter. Ireland still wants the northern bits. And Japan is still fretting over the Kurils. The Afghan parliament has rejected the Duran Line and claims most of northern Pakistan. Spain and Morocco have got half a dozen territorial bunfights in the works. Canada and Denmark are bickering over Hans Island. The Yanks aren't happy about the boundary in the Juan de Fuca Strait (those damned aggressive Canadians again). You could fill a small library with details on disputed territories and most have not wound up smelling of cordite. Just because there is a dispute does not mean there is going to be a war.
Historically, those nations that started wars in recent times generally did not wind up profiting from them; with the exceptions of some utter whackos like Kim, that lesson has generally filtered down to the national level at least.
Moreover, land claims don't usually carry much weight in law centuries latter. Few nations would want them to, frankly. There are too many skeletons in just about everybody's closet.
The best option for the Falklands, I think, is for London to ask the UN to run a self-determination referendum with suffrage restricted to established residents. Make a big deal of it - international observers, full media coverage, the works. It's a no-brainer as to results and would make it much harder for some future Argentine govt to lay claim when the UN has formally nodded in Britain's direction.