| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Aristodemus
England1993 Posts
On June 21 2011 21:22 chgh wrote: Read the whole post! or Buy a book of the history of the Falklands at least! Well done answering what I wrote, I read your simple post and answered it. Stop bolding your comments too, does it make you feel like what you have to say is actually important? | ||
|
dakalro
Romania525 Posts
From what I see Argentina just wants its name on that island on the maps (and if there is oil around, the 200 miles territorial waters) and apparently it's their right for it. Islands were part of Buenos Aires province in a treaty that was the basis of creation of pretty much the entire South America and to which everyone agreed at the time, and since Buenos Aires went independent that surely included every part of it; that is until the empire came back with a letter saying the queen wanted the islands. The brits there want to be left alone and live as subjects of the empire (nicer benefits than Argentina I assume, and pride of course). It seems the solution is pretty simple. Give it back to Argentina, let them lend the land to the UK for 1$ or something until all British citizens leave (if ever). | ||
|
chgh
22 Posts
On June 21 2011 21:17 Rabiator wrote: So what exactly are "Argentinas rights" in this? The only question is if the island wants to become its own state or not. Since the British have lived there so long the land hasnt any connection whatsoever to Argentina. It is as if Chile or New Zealand or Malaysia were telling the tiny islands in the pacific ocean "You are close to us, we are bigger than you and on the continent, thus allyourlandarebelongtous." It doesnt work that way and Argentina has zero claims to the Falklands. If you are soo righteous about these islands go and talk to the UN. Anything else is just propaganda to get yourself all riled up for another war. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18048 Posts
A very similar situation is Gibraltar, which Spain lays claim to (with a bit more justification than Argentina has for the Falklands, but it is a pretty similar situation). There's Ceuta and Melilla which are Spanish territory, contested by Morocco and Cyprus is of course just a complete and utter mess. I don't think such issues have any clear solution that is "right" and it creates plenty of work for diplomats  | ||
|
Soap
Brazil1546 Posts
On June 21 2011 21:37 Acrofales wrote: Argentina for a year and know that the people there feel it is a great injustice, that the UK committed quite a few warcrimes during the war and generally hate the English. Like sinking a military ship of the country that attacked them? The argentines you refer to are delusional. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18048 Posts
On June 21 2011 17:51 Sated wrote: Wrong. Self-determination is part of international law and I'm pretty damn sure that if you polled the people of the Falklands, they'd want to be part of Britain. The people of the Falklands want to be part of Britain and see themselves as British. Until that changes, Argentina has no argument. Then again... if you held a referendum in Mali, Haïti or some other destitute country they would probably also vote to be part of a country with a social wellfare plan for all its citizens. Furthermore self-determination is rather tricky after 200 years of breaking an international treaty: yes, NOW the population is British, but the Argentineans argue that 200 years ago England conquered that land and never gave it back, thus it is actually a colony and England has signed treaties to get rid of all its colonies. As such what the majority of the people want is somewhat irrelevant: just as Morocco encourages Moroccans to move to the Western Sahara and China moves Chinese people into Tibet. Obviously these situations are not entirely the same, but if in 200 years there are no more Saharoui or Tibettans left and the population of both these territories feel entirely Moroccan/Chinese, does that wipe out the injustice done in the 20th century? Now I'd say let bygones be bygones with regards to the Falklands: making people now unhappy because 200 years ago England conquered a piece of useless rock in the middle of the Atlantic seems silly. However simply referring to self-determination as the only solution is overly simplifying the diplomatic situation. | ||
|
Maenander
Germany4926 Posts
In their eyes the UK is the evil colonial empire, when in reality they are the descendants of the colonists that wiped out most of the native population in their country (all the while the falkland islands were previously uninhabited). They have a huge country with vast resources that could easily support their small population and would do so if not for misgovernment and corruption, and yet they think these barren islands are the key for their future. Who cares about treaties from 200 years ago, when they lacked any physical substance in the mean time? They are obsolete once and for all. If the Falkland islands are ever "decolonized" (whatever that means), they should certainly not fall under argentinian jurisdiction, but be independent. | ||
|
chgh
22 Posts
On June 21 2011 21:51 Soap wrote: Like sinking a military ship of the country that attacked them? The argentines you refer to are delusional. No my friend, if you like we ignore that. Rather like shooting prisoners or cut the ears of 18 year old conscripts taken prisoners. | ||
KwarK
United States42956 Posts
| ||
|
sc4k
United Kingdom5454 Posts
On June 21 2011 22:02 KwarK wrote: Argentina invaded the sovereign soil of a nuclear power in NATO in a land grab attempt and then bitched about the sinking of one ship. If you guys really think Britain overstepped the mark there then I suggest you try doing it to the United States and see what they do. The degree to which clear limits and proportional response was shown to Argentina is comparable to a parent gently restraining their child who swings wildly in a temper tantrum. haha, wow this was really well expressed, absolutely could not have said it better myself. When the guy a few posts up said Argentinians hate the UK and blame us for war crimes...my head was so full of fuck I simply could not think of a way to articulate a response. | ||
|
jello_biafra
United Kingdom6638 Posts
On June 21 2011 21:23 MulletMurdoc wrote: A better economy? A better way of living? Better human rights? - A passport that allow free or easy travel through out most of the world? I agree with your post, just to address the questions though: No Doubtful Very doubtful I don't know about the Argentinian passport but the British one is the best in the world (in that it gives you the greatest and easiest access to the most countries out of any passport in the world) I see Argentinians saying that the invasion in 1982 was "only" done because the party wanted to stay in power, if that was what was keeping them in power then surely the invasion of the Falklands was very popular amongst the general population, as was demonstrated in the riots that broke out when the people found out the government had been lying to them and they had lost the war. It helped Margaret Thatcher a lot too, but she didn't start the war. On June 21 2011 21:37 Acrofales wrote: The English in general don't really give a crap and most probably wouldn't even know where the islands are if you give them a map. I agree that it's not really that large an issue in the UK, beyond stopping Argentina from having the islands the general populace doesn't really care about it but that's because we have loads of territories all over the world like this, this one is only a big deal because of Argentina. I'm pretty sure though the majority of the British population could point out the rough location of the islands on a map though... Anyway, damn you Spain and your rogue colonies!  On June 21 2011 21:54 Acrofales wrote: thus it is actually a colony and England has signed treaties to get rid of all its colonies. . It's not like Britain (not England!) signed one big treaty saying "we will get rid of all our colonies", they were dealt with on a case by case basis, the majority became independent countries but a lot wanted to stay on as British territories. Here's a list of our "colonies" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Overseas_Territories On June 21 2011 22:02 chgh wrote: No my friend, if you like we ignore that. Rather like shooting prisoners or cut the ears of 18 year old conscripts taken prisoners. Okay I know there were cases of people who had just surrendered being shot (on the field of battle, not actual prisoners yet) but that was because some Argentine units were "surrendering" then when the British came up to them a bunch of hidden guys would emerge and start shooting at them. As for cutting off an ear, I have to call bullshit on that. I do know though that the Argentine soldiers were told that the British would do all kinds of horrible things to them if they were captured, in the end though the vast majority realized this was ridiculous and were actually happy to surrender and end it all. | ||
|
chgh
22 Posts
On June 21 2011 22:02 KwarK wrote: Argentina invaded the sovereign soil of a nuclear power in NATO in a land grab attempt and then bitched about the sinking of one ship. If you guys really think Britain overstepped the mark there then I suggest you try doing it to the United States and see what they do. The degree to which clear limits and proportional response was shown to Argentina is comparable to a parent gently restraining their child who swings wildly in a temper tantrum. Pal: War crime is a war crime. No matter if the Nazis were worse than your. In the case of Belgrano, you imposed the Total Exclusion Zone around the Falklands. You Britons try to justify all. You always have an answer. | ||
|
Svetz
Australia311 Posts
| ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On June 21 2011 22:29 chgh wrote: Pal: War crime is a war crime. No matter if the Nazis were worse than your. In the case of Belgrano, you imposed the Total Exclusion Zone around the Falklands. You Britons try to justify all. You always have an answer. Which war crime? Where is your evidence? Sinking a ship isnt a war crime, so what were those war crimes and where is your proof? Either bring that proof or withdraw that argument. | ||
|
chgh
22 Posts
On June 21 2011 22:23 jello_biafra wrote: I agree with your post, just to address the questions though: No Doubtful Very doubtful I don't know about the Argentinian passport but the British one is the best in the world (in that it gives you the greatest and easiest access to the most countries out of any passport in the world) I see Argentinians saying that the invasion in 1982 was "only" done because the party wanted to stay in power, if that was what was keeping them in power then surely the invasion of the Falklands was very popular amongst the general population, as was demonstrated in the riots that broke out when the people found out the government had been lying to them and they had lost the war. It helped Margaret Thatcher a lot too, but she didn't start the war. I agree that it's not really that large an issue in the UK, beyond stopping Argentina from having the islands the general populace doesn't really care about it but that's because we have loads of territories all over the world like this, this one is only a big deal because of Argentina. I'm pretty sure though the majority of the British population could point out the rough location of the islands on a map though... Anyway, damn you Spain and your rogue colonies! It's not like Britain (not England!) signed one big treaty saying "we will get rid of all our colonies", they were dealt with on a case by case basis, the majority became independent countries but a lot wanted to stay on as British territories. Here's a list of our "colonies" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Overseas_Territories Strange way of thinking for someone with Jello Biafra as a nickname!!! You love your queen Sir? | ||
|
jello_biafra
United Kingdom6638 Posts
On June 21 2011 22:37 chgh wrote: Strange way of thinking for someone with Jello Biafra as a nickname!!! You love your queen Sir? Haha, I don't love the queen no but I don't particularly object to her. I respect my country and the rights of its citizens though. | ||
|
chgh
22 Posts
On June 21 2011 22:34 Svetz wrote: If the islands are 'legally' Argentinian as I keep reading them post as a fact, then how come they refused the 3 times the UK offered to settle the dispute in the international court of justice? HAHAHA When was that? | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18048 Posts
On June 21 2011 22:05 sc4k wrote: haha, wow this was really well expressed, absolutely could not have said it better myself. When the guy a few posts up said Argentinians hate the UK and blame us for war crimes...my head was so full of fuck I simply could not think of a way to articulate a response. I'm not Argentinean and consider myself fairly impartial in the matter. I don't know enough about the war to give you facts about whether or not the UK reacted proportionally. However, I do know that the feelings in Argentina about the Falklands (and the English) there are pretty strong and yes, the English do get blamed for warcrimes (real or imagined). No, the Falklands really mean absolutely nothing to anybody. They are a group of barren rocks in the middle of the Atlantic and probably can't even support enough sheep to hold their (meagre) population. However, Argentineans are a very proud people and they feel the Falklands belong to them: that is why the invasion in 1982 was popular and an excellent way of distracting the populations from the horrible atrocities committed in internal politics. It was unfortunate for them that the British government also needed a distraction from their failed internal economical politics and war was the result. A lot of Argentineans view the war as injust and neo-colonialism as they feel the invasion was justified. As such they feel that the sinking of the Belgrano battleship was an unprovoked act of violence. I need to reiterate that I do not agree and am reporting on what I was told during my time in Argentina. Personally I think that invading the Falklands was an act of war and the sinking of a warship was a part of that war. Regardless, however, it is quite obvious that the Falkland war didn't help resolve the conflict over the islands one bit: both countries have since been more convinced than ever that that useless pile of rocks in the middle of the Atlantic belongs to them. | ||
|
chgh
22 Posts
On June 21 2011 22:35 Rabiator wrote: Which war crime? Where is your evidence? Sinking a ship isnt a war crime, so what were those war crimes and where is your proof? Either bring that proof or withdraw that argument. Judges in England in the 90's, newspapers, British books about Mount Longdon ! Argentine Books. What kind of evidences you need. Until I know I only can post links. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18048 Posts
On June 21 2011 22:34 Svetz wrote: If the islands are 'legally' Argentinian as I keep reading them post as a fact, then how come they refused the 3 times the UK offered to settle the dispute in the international court of justice? Because they feel the International Court of Justice is not impartial (and to be fair, it probably isn't as most judges and advocates come from NATO countries). | ||
| ||
Wardi Open
Mondays #51
[ Submit Event ] |
|
|
|
Monday Night Weeklies
OSC
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Afreeca Starleague
Light vs Speed
Larva vs Soma
PiGosaur Monday
LiuLi Cup
RSL Revival
Maru vs Reynor
Cure vs TriGGeR
The PondCast
RSL Revival
Zoun vs Classic
Korean StarCraft League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
