|
On June 22 2011 09:52 MattyClutch wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2011 00:58 jeppew wrote:
I don't see how anyone can argue on behalf of the Argentinian claim when the people who live on the islands are, and wish to remain, Brittish. And this isn't a military occupation of foreign soil, they have lived there for centuries, so i'd say that the wishes of the people who actually live on the islands are the only thing that matters on this issue. This is pretty much how I feel. The people want to be Brits, so let them be Brits.
And if the people of the Falkland Islands wanted to be Argentinians, do you really think the position of the British government would be the same?
Nobody that will make any decisions here is particularly concerned with the well-being of the Falkland Islanders. The bottom line is that there are material resources to be gained here, and that, without outside intervention, Argentina has no ability to contest Britain's claim to the islands. Any appeals to international law or self-determinism or anything else for that matter are simply justifications made by leaders to appease the populations of their countries.
Everyone wants more than they have. Some people have both the ability and required lack of scruples to take what they want. Such is, unfortunately, the way of the world.
|
United States41959 Posts
On June 16 2012 11:25 JJoNeEightY wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 09:52 MattyClutch wrote:On June 18 2011 00:58 jeppew wrote:
I don't see how anyone can argue on behalf of the Argentinian claim when the people who live on the islands are, and wish to remain, Brittish. And this isn't a military occupation of foreign soil, they have lived there for centuries, so i'd say that the wishes of the people who actually live on the islands are the only thing that matters on this issue. This is pretty much how I feel. The people want to be Brits, so let them be Brits. And if the people of the Falkland Islands wanted to be Argentinians, do you really think the position of the British government would be the same?
Yes, you're talking about a nation with a tremendous respect for self determinism and a recent history to prove it. We've been having referendums on these issues for decades and have been acting accordingly.
|
On June 16 2012 08:28 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2012 08:26 Captain Calamity wrote:
TBH an easy war would be a total gift for Mr Cameron.
Argentena is looking at the fact that we don't have any aircraft carriers at the moment and has drawn the wrong conclusions... (Much like they drew the wrong conclusions 30 years ago from defence cuts then)
Rattling the sabre probably does wonders for the popularity of any Argentinian politician but its stepping toward a line they cannot cross.
What I find intriguing is that the USA inst particularly forthcoming in backing the only people who backed them 100% in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This has prompted the Falklands Islands Government to have the referendum of 'foregone conclusions' where the results will be split between the sane people and the 'guy who took a bribe of whopping proportions'
So why is the US having such cold feet on this one...? Could it be the promise of potentially lucrative oil contracts?
Overall its very silly but I have heard that a few of the naval top brass cant wait to dust off some of their latest toys in a show of force that may take the edge off the current defence cuts. from the china thread: Show nested quote +On June 15 2012 13:22 dAPhREAk wrote:
why does every political thread turn into a pro/con-US debate?
Not implying anything here, I'm just very curious, but what's your nationality/racial background?
|
Its all about oil in the end, ownership of the islands allows britain to explore a huge territory around it with exclusive oil rights, and they have been finding tons of oil!
No surprise they want to be british btw, argentineans for all their worth, would only exploit them
|
On June 16 2012 11:25 JJoNeEightY wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 09:52 MattyClutch wrote:On June 18 2011 00:58 jeppew wrote:
I don't see how anyone can argue on behalf of the Argentinian claim when the people who live on the islands are, and wish to remain, Brittish. And this isn't a military occupation of foreign soil, they have lived there for centuries, so i'd say that the wishes of the people who actually live on the islands are the only thing that matters on this issue. This is pretty much how I feel. The people want to be Brits, so let them be Brits. And if the people of the Falkland Islands wanted to be Argentinians, do you really think the position of the British government would be the same? Nobody that will make any decisions here is particularly concerned with the well-being of the Falkland Islanders. The bottom line is that there are material resources to be gained here, and that, without outside intervention, Argentina has no ability to contest Britain's claim to the islands. Any appeals to international law or self-determinism or anything else for that matter are simply justifications made by leaders to appease the populations of their countries. Everyone wants more than they have. Some people have both the ability and required lack of scruples to take what they want. Such is, unfortunately, the way of the world.
There are horrible, bloody conflicts, terrible political challenges, and economic downturns all across the world, and one of the few examples of a colonial holding in which the native citizenry is happy with their nationality is where your making your stand? And for what exactly? What are you arguing for?
|
Complex issue. Unrestricted self determinism is a bad thing. There are a few cults and politically radical groups in the us who would secede given half a chance. For me, it is a combination of factors that lead me to support the Falklands remaining subjects of the uk. Self determinism is part, another part is that they are probably better off that way, short and long term. If Britain was shipping slaves over there and using them to plant sugar, like in the bad old days, things might be different. Third, it's an Island and a special case, culturally and historically linked to the uk more than argentina and doesn't threaten the integrity of argentina with its existence.
|
On June 16 2012 11:47 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2012 11:25 JJoNeEightY wrote:On June 22 2011 09:52 MattyClutch wrote:On June 18 2011 00:58 jeppew wrote:
I don't see how anyone can argue on behalf of the Argentinian claim when the people who live on the islands are, and wish to remain, Brittish. And this isn't a military occupation of foreign soil, they have lived there for centuries, so i'd say that the wishes of the people who actually live on the islands are the only thing that matters on this issue. This is pretty much how I feel. The people want to be Brits, so let them be Brits. And if the people of the Falkland Islands wanted to be Argentinians, do you really think the position of the British government would be the same? Nobody that will make any decisions here is particularly concerned with the well-being of the Falkland Islanders. The bottom line is that there are material resources to be gained here, and that, without outside intervention, Argentina has no ability to contest Britain's claim to the islands. Any appeals to international law or self-determinism or anything else for that matter are simply justifications made by leaders to appease the populations of their countries. Everyone wants more than they have. Some people have both the ability and required lack of scruples to take what they want. Such is, unfortunately, the way of the world. There are horrible, bloody conflicts, terrible political challenges, and economic downturns all across the world, and one of the few examples of a colonial holding in which the native citizenry is happy with their nationality is where your making your stand? And for what exactly? What are you arguing for?
I'm not arguing for either side. I just want people to think.
We, as a species, are in a pretty shitty state of affairs. If people start to question what they are told, to realize that Britain isn't claiming the Falkland Islands because they want the people living there to live happy, fulfilling lives, to realize that America isn't in the middle east because of freedom or justice or whatever-else-have-you, if people start to realize that they are being manipulated and pacified and fed truck loads of misinformation on a daily basis, perhaps then things can start to change.
|
On June 16 2012 12:00 JJoNeEightY wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2012 11:47 farvacola wrote:On June 16 2012 11:25 JJoNeEightY wrote:On June 22 2011 09:52 MattyClutch wrote:On June 18 2011 00:58 jeppew wrote:
I don't see how anyone can argue on behalf of the Argentinian claim when the people who live on the islands are, and wish to remain, Brittish. And this isn't a military occupation of foreign soil, they have lived there for centuries, so i'd say that the wishes of the people who actually live on the islands are the only thing that matters on this issue. This is pretty much how I feel. The people want to be Brits, so let them be Brits. And if the people of the Falkland Islands wanted to be Argentinians, do you really think the position of the British government would be the same? Nobody that will make any decisions here is particularly concerned with the well-being of the Falkland Islanders. The bottom line is that there are material resources to be gained here, and that, without outside intervention, Argentina has no ability to contest Britain's claim to the islands. Any appeals to international law or self-determinism or anything else for that matter are simply justifications made by leaders to appease the populations of their countries. Everyone wants more than they have. Some people have both the ability and required lack of scruples to take what they want. Such is, unfortunately, the way of the world. There are horrible, bloody conflicts, terrible political challenges, and economic downturns all across the world, and one of the few examples of a colonial holding in which the native citizenry is happy with their nationality is where your making your stand? And for what exactly? What are you arguing for? I'm not arguing for either side. I just want people to think. We, as a species, are in a pretty shitty state of affairs. If people start to question what they are told, to realize that Britain isn't claiming the Falkland Islands because they want the people living there to live happy, fulfilling lives, to realize that America isn't in the middle east because of freedom or justice or whatever-else-have-you, if people start to realize that they are being manipulated and pacified and fed truck loads of misinformation on a daily basis, perhaps then things can start to change.
To be entirely frank, I don't really care about Britain's justifications for their holding the Falklands. In fact, the moment I heard about the entire thing my first though was, "Well, what do the people of the islands want?" And much to my surprise, the people's wishes in terms of their national identification are being fulfilled. That being said, I can understand the notion that Argentina/ the people of Argentina are losing out on resources/geography that may be owed to them. In this case, however, I think it makes to sense to let things be.
|
On June 16 2012 12:00 JJoNeEightY wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2012 11:47 farvacola wrote:On June 16 2012 11:25 JJoNeEightY wrote:On June 22 2011 09:52 MattyClutch wrote:On June 18 2011 00:58 jeppew wrote:
I don't see how anyone can argue on behalf of the Argentinian claim when the people who live on the islands are, and wish to remain, Brittish. And this isn't a military occupation of foreign soil, they have lived there for centuries, so i'd say that the wishes of the people who actually live on the islands are the only thing that matters on this issue. This is pretty much how I feel. The people want to be Brits, so let them be Brits. And if the people of the Falkland Islands wanted to be Argentinians, do you really think the position of the British government would be the same? Nobody that will make any decisions here is particularly concerned with the well-being of the Falkland Islanders. The bottom line is that there are material resources to be gained here, and that, without outside intervention, Argentina has no ability to contest Britain's claim to the islands. Any appeals to international law or self-determinism or anything else for that matter are simply justifications made by leaders to appease the populations of their countries. Everyone wants more than they have. Some people have both the ability and required lack of scruples to take what they want. Such is, unfortunately, the way of the world. There are horrible, bloody conflicts, terrible political challenges, and economic downturns all across the world, and one of the few examples of a colonial holding in which the native citizenry is happy with their nationality is where your making your stand? And for what exactly? What are you arguing for? I'm not arguing for either side. I just want people to think. We, as a species, are in a pretty shitty state of affairs. If people start to question what they are told, to realize that Britain isn't claiming the Falkland Islands because they want the people living there to live happy, fulfilling lives, to realize that America isn't in the middle east because of freedom or justice or whatever-else-have-you, if people start to realize that they are being manipulated and pacified and fed truck loads of misinformation on a daily basis, perhaps then things can start to change.
Yeah but the people in the Falklands want to stay there so why does it matter for this particular issue?
|
I agree.
Also, why are we having this discussion in the 21st Century? Everything that had to be conquered has been conquered and almost every major war fought because of conquering a territory has been fought, plus like everyone says, the Falkland people want to stay British, not Argentinian.
Ms Kirschner should pay more attention to her domestic issues first, she sounds like Venezuela's Chavez. Honestly I don't how some guys made it to presidency of a country
|
territory claim is always complicated.
British set up its colony through brute force and set up governments and schools to soft culture change the locals' point of view.
my personal viewpoint is extremely biased since Hong Kong was given to British after the first opium war.
Not to mention how much treasures and relics were taken by the British and now they are still in display in the British museum...
so I do agree with the president's 'crude colonial power in decline' remark
But for this particular issue, they should just settle it over international law more than anything else I feel.
The british should be happy that they soft culture invasion has been very successful if it is decided to belong to them
|
On June 16 2012 12:07 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2012 12:00 JJoNeEightY wrote:On June 16 2012 11:47 farvacola wrote:On June 16 2012 11:25 JJoNeEightY wrote:On June 22 2011 09:52 MattyClutch wrote:On June 18 2011 00:58 jeppew wrote:
I don't see how anyone can argue on behalf of the Argentinian claim when the people who live on the islands are, and wish to remain, Brittish. And this isn't a military occupation of foreign soil, they have lived there for centuries, so i'd say that the wishes of the people who actually live on the islands are the only thing that matters on this issue. This is pretty much how I feel. The people want to be Brits, so let them be Brits. And if the people of the Falkland Islands wanted to be Argentinians, do you really think the position of the British government would be the same? Nobody that will make any decisions here is particularly concerned with the well-being of the Falkland Islanders. The bottom line is that there are material resources to be gained here, and that, without outside intervention, Argentina has no ability to contest Britain's claim to the islands. Any appeals to international law or self-determinism or anything else for that matter are simply justifications made by leaders to appease the populations of their countries. Everyone wants more than they have. Some people have both the ability and required lack of scruples to take what they want. Such is, unfortunately, the way of the world. There are horrible, bloody conflicts, terrible political challenges, and economic downturns all across the world, and one of the few examples of a colonial holding in which the native citizenry is happy with their nationality is where your making your stand? And for what exactly? What are you arguing for? I'm not arguing for either side. I just want people to think. We, as a species, are in a pretty shitty state of affairs. If people start to question what they are told, to realize that Britain isn't claiming the Falkland Islands because they want the people living there to live happy, fulfilling lives, to realize that America isn't in the middle east because of freedom or justice or whatever-else-have-you, if people start to realize that they are being manipulated and pacified and fed truck loads of misinformation on a daily basis, perhaps then things can start to change. Yeah but the people in the Falklands want to stay there so why does it matter for this particular issue?
Treating the symptoms doesn't address their cause. Just because things happen to work out well enough here under our currently broken system doesn't mean that we shouldn't be talking about this. Basically, although the outcome may be the 'right thing' the reasons are wrong. You don't want to set precedence based on that.
Additionally, there are a lot of relevant issues here, things that are important to discuss in the larger scheme of things. The issue of private landownership, issues of class, etc, etc, etc... Basically, those who currently have a hand in managing the world's resources are not doing a very good job of it. People starving to death in this day and age is absolutely ridiculous. We are squandering our non-renewable, actually scarce resources with neither rhyme nor reason. We cling to ridiculous ideals about 'hard work' and people getting 'what they deserve.' What people deserve is a right to life, to their fair share of this planet's resources, no matter how 'economically productive' they are, no matter what family they were born into, etc, etc, etc...
It's 11:00 pm on a friday night here, I'm absolutely fried; I think I might be rambling and being a bit abstract here, but, basically, what I am saying is that this conflict is about who owns a piece of land. A piece of land is valued, primarily, for its ability to produce resources. Resources are required to sustain life. The current distribution of resources is not sustaining life in a lot of places. If there are people in the world who don't have anything to eat, and the Falkland Islands are producing resources, and those resources are going to people who already do have enough to eat, based on a concept of who 'owns' a piece of land, this is a problem, and we should be looking for the solution.
|
Heh, it's kinda weird/funny the most courteous person in this thread is the person who actually fought in the damned war.
|
PR stunt according to my Argentinian gf. From my outside perspective, Kirchner seems quite incompetent. Or good at corruption and making her cronies richer. An example: Argentina was pressured into putting laws in place to hinder money laundering. After months of hassle, it is now possible again to transfer money out of the country, but you are now losing about 20% of the money transferred in the process.
|
On June 16 2012 12:37 ETisME wrote:
territory claim is always complicated.
British set up its colony through brute force and set up governments and schools to soft culture change the locals' point of view.
What are you talking about? There is no native population of the Falklands and the population that lives there is almost entirely of British descent. "Brute force" was not needed to take an empty island, and there weren't any locals.
|
On June 16 2012 12:00 JJoNeEightY wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2012 11:47 farvacola wrote:On June 16 2012 11:25 JJoNeEightY wrote:On June 22 2011 09:52 MattyClutch wrote:On June 18 2011 00:58 jeppew wrote:
I don't see how anyone can argue on behalf of the Argentinian claim when the people who live on the islands are, and wish to remain, Brittish. And this isn't a military occupation of foreign soil, they have lived there for centuries, so i'd say that the wishes of the people who actually live on the islands are the only thing that matters on this issue. This is pretty much how I feel. The people want to be Brits, so let them be Brits. And if the people of the Falkland Islands wanted to be Argentinians, do you really think the position of the British government would be the same? Nobody that will make any decisions here is particularly concerned with the well-being of the Falkland Islanders. The bottom line is that there are material resources to be gained here, and that, without outside intervention, Argentina has no ability to contest Britain's claim to the islands. Any appeals to international law or self-determinism or anything else for that matter are simply justifications made by leaders to appease the populations of their countries. Everyone wants more than they have. Some people have both the ability and required lack of scruples to take what they want. Such is, unfortunately, the way of the world. There are horrible, bloody conflicts, terrible political challenges, and economic downturns all across the world, and one of the few examples of a colonial holding in which the native citizenry is happy with their nationality is where your making your stand? And for what exactly? What are you arguing for? I'm not arguing for either side. I just want people to think. We, as a species, are in a pretty shitty state of affairs. If people start to question what they are told, to realize that Britain isn't claiming the Falkland Islands because they want the people living there to live happy, fulfilling lives, to realize that America isn't in the middle east because of freedom or justice or whatever-else-have-you, if people start to realize that they are being manipulated and pacified and fed truck loads of misinformation on a daily basis, perhaps then things can start to change.
Normally I would agree with you. But in 1982 no one knew that there were many resources around the Falklands.
|
On June 16 2012 11:41 Xpace wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2012 08:28 dAPhREAk wrote:On June 16 2012 08:26 Captain Calamity wrote:
TBH an easy war would be a total gift for Mr Cameron.
Argentena is looking at the fact that we don't have any aircraft carriers at the moment and has drawn the wrong conclusions... (Much like they drew the wrong conclusions 30 years ago from defence cuts then)
Rattling the sabre probably does wonders for the popularity of any Argentinian politician but its stepping toward a line they cannot cross.
What I find intriguing is that the USA inst particularly forthcoming in backing the only people who backed them 100% in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This has prompted the Falklands Islands Government to have the referendum of 'foregone conclusions' where the results will be split between the sane people and the 'guy who took a bribe of whopping proportions'
So why is the US having such cold feet on this one...? Could it be the promise of potentially lucrative oil contracts?
Overall its very silly but I have heard that a few of the naval top brass cant wait to dust off some of their latest toys in a show of force that may take the edge off the current defence cuts. from the china thread: On June 15 2012 13:22 dAPhREAk wrote:
why does every political thread turn into a pro/con-US debate? Not implying anything here, I'm just very curious, but what's your nationality/racial background?
why does it matter?
|
On June 16 2012 11:25 JJoNeEightY wrote:
And if the people of the Falkland Islands wanted to be Argentinians, do you really think the position of the British government would be the same?
Yes, absolutely the British government would and should respect the islanders' decision if they no longer wished to remain British. Just what are you saying?
On June 16 2012 11:25 JJoNeEightY wrote:
Nobody that will make any decisions here is particularly concerned with the well-being of the Falkland Islanders.
Don't even start. We haven't got Joseph Stalin in power over here...
On June 16 2012 11:25 JJoNeEightY wrote:
The bottom line is that there are material resources to be gained here, and that, without outside intervention, Argentina has no ability to contest Britain's claim to the islands. Any appeals to international law or self-determinism or anything else for that matter are simply justifications made by leaders to appease the populations of their countries.
So what system and/or criteria do you suggest in order to settle this issue? The Falklands are too small to be an independant state, and Argentina pretty much lost all respect after invading the islands.
On June 16 2012 11:25 JJoNeEightY wrote:
Everyone wants more than they have. Some people have both the ability and required lack of scruples to take what they want. Such is, unfortunately, the way of the world.
Again, no idea what you're talking about. The islands were never taken by force, and nobody is forcing the islanders to be British.
On June 16 2012 12:37 ETisME wrote:
territory claim is always complicated.
British set up its colony through brute force and set up governments and schools to soft culture change the locals' point of view.
my personal viewpoint is extremely biased since Hong Kong was given to British after the first opium war.
Not to mention how much treasures and relics were taken by the British and now they are still in display in the British museum...
so I do agree with the president's 'crude colonial power in decline' remark
But for this particular issue, they should just settle it over international law more than anything else I feel.
The british should be happy that they soft culture invasion has been very successful if it is decided to belong to them
You're implying that the natives were brainwashed or something? Well, for start there were no natives to begin with, so that is not possible, which also means that the islands were never taken by 'brute force' since there was nothing to force out.
You hate the British, fine, but don't just make stuff up.
|
Additionally, there are a lot of relevant issues here, things that are important to discuss in the larger scheme of things. The issue of private landownership, issues of class, etc, etc, etc... Basically, those who currently have a hand in managing the world's resources are not doing a very good job of it. People starving to death in this day and age is absolutely ridiculous. We are squandering our non-renewable, actually scarce resources with neither rhyme nor reason. We cling to ridiculous ideals about 'hard work' and people getting 'what they deserve.' What people deserve is a right to life, to their fair share of this planet's resources, no matter how 'economically productive' they are, no matter what family they were born into, etc, etc, etc...
How unfortunate that there aren't any Communist countries left but Cuba for you to move to so you can experience the utopia of your wishes in action.
|
On June 16 2012 11:25 JJoNeEightY wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 09:52 MattyClutch wrote:On June 18 2011 00:58 jeppew wrote:
I don't see how anyone can argue on behalf of the Argentinian claim when the people who live on the islands are, and wish to remain, Brittish. And this isn't a military occupation of foreign soil, they have lived there for centuries, so i'd say that the wishes of the people who actually live on the islands are the only thing that matters on this issue. This is pretty much how I feel. The people want to be Brits, so let them be Brits. And if the people of the Falkland Islands wanted to be Argentinians, do you really think the position of the British government would be the same? Nobody that will make any decisions here is particularly concerned with the well-being of the Falkland Islanders. The bottom line is that there are material resources to be gained here, and that, without outside intervention, Argentina has no ability to contest Britain's claim to the islands. Any appeals to international law or self-determinism or anything else for that matter are simply justifications made by leaders to appease the populations of their countries. Everyone wants more than they have. Some people have both the ability and required lack of scruples to take what they want. Such is, unfortunately, the way of the world.
Actually, the UK really believes in self-determinism. I'm pretty certain that if the Falklands wanted independence, Britain would grant them independence. Case in point: my country was part of the British Empire, and in the 1950s and 60s, there were talks of annexing my country to the UK, and the only thing keeping it from happening was a referendum (which ended up failing, but only because the Catholic Church threatened anyone voting in favour of integration to be expelled from the church). Once integration was off the table, my country started pushing for independence, and this was basically granted within a couple of years. Believe it or not, British colonialism was extremely beneficial to many of its territories, and quite a few of the colonised recognised that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
