|
On June 17 2011 11:28 Carras wrote:
you keep avoiding the fact that both british settlements where ilegal.. the first one was against signed treaties amongst the imperial powers.
second one was when they islands where already truly argentinan , populated and all, just not able to defend themselves..
It's been a while since my last history classes, but are you sure England signed a treaty splitting the Americas between Spain and Portugal, while getting nothing in return? Just because two countries "said it first" doesn't mean it actually works like that, or worked like that. Plenty of countries were colonized by Holland or France, for example, and noone is saying French Guiana should go back to Spain because they signed a treaty. This kind of disputes are never that simple.
|
What ?!?
So you go directly against the opinion of people actually living on the islands because the water between Argentina and The Falklands is not deep enough ?
And just because there is a historical explanation for the fact that the people on the falklands identify themselves as British, does not mean the opinion is not valid.
i repeat,stealing sth and holding it 200 years doesnt make it yours
for more information about how it was "stolen" twice just read the rest of my posts.
|
On June 17 2011 11:33 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I thought the building of the two carriers was put on hold and the updating/modernizing of the other was put on hold due to the economic austerity measures?
Not as far as I know, this story about them beginning work on carrier two dates from two weeks ago, and I can find no newer news on the subject: http://www.thecourier.co.uk/News/Fife/article/14388/future-force-2020-pledge-as-work-begins-on-second-carrier.html
You may be confusing them with the US Gerald R Ford class, which was changed in 2009 to a five year per carrier plan, to save on costs and more closely match the scheduled decommissioning of the Nimitz class carriers(the newest of which, the USS George H. W. Bush was commissioned in 2009, so they are in no danger of imminent obsolescence).
|
while getting nothing in return?
Brithish empire got other parts of the world.. dont remember exactly how it went.. Africa split between france and britain, the territory wich now is USA was split between spain and britain (france too i think) India was colnized by britain also, etc dont know exactly
|
United States41960 Posts
(with thanks to wikipedia)
Britain occupied the islands in 1766. In 1774 the settlement was abandoned but a plaque was left claiming the islands for Britain (this was a good 40 years before Argentina existed). Spain then claimed them and although they left in 1806 left a plaque claiming their ownership. So now we have two nations claiming ownership, both before Argentina existed.
In 1820 the first Argentinian ship lands on the islands after several hundred years of European use. In 1832 after just 12 years of Argentine rule the British come back and reassert their claim dating back to 1774.
There is no historical case for Argentina. Some guy was squatting on them for 12 years. That does not make them Argentinian.
However, even if Britain was in the wrong in 1832 for reclaiming the islands that does not make Britain wrong now. The rights of the hypothetical Argentinians who maybe would have lived there had history been different does not outweigh the rights of the British people who live there now. History is full of things that could have been different if things had gone another way but you don't get to pick your hypothetical and then invade places. The people living there are real, they have the right of self determinism and they have exercised it.
|
On June 17 2011 11:36 Carras wrote:Brithish empire got other parts of the world.. dont remember exactly how it went.. Africa split between france and britain, the territory wich now is USA was split between spain and britain (france too i think) India was colnized by britain also, etc dont know exactly
Now you are wrong, unless you mean another treaty. The one that split the Americas was made solely by Portugal and Spain, because they were the super powers of that time. It was ignored by the rest of Europe because they were not part of it.
Wikipedia for the rescue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tordesillas
It was ignored by other European nations, and with the decline of Spanish and Portuguese power, the home countries were unable to hold many of their claims, much less expand them into poorly explored areas. Thus, with sufficient backing, it became possible for any European state to colonize open territories, or those weakly held by Lisbon or Madrid.
As a proof that this is the treaty you are talking about:
The Treaty of Tordesillas has been invoked by Argentina in the 20th century as part of its claim to the Falkland Islands.[34]
|
Britain had no legitimate rigth to occupy the islands in 1766 in the first place. Spain had, hence when Argentina frees itself from spain , takes ALL their american territories (ilegally occuppied or not ^^ )
|
On June 17 2011 11:33 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I thought the building of the two carriers was put on hold and the updating/modernizing of the other was put on hold due to the economic austerity measures?
It was speculated that might be done but it wasn't.
On June 17 2011 11:41 Carras wrote:
Britain had no legitimate rigth to occupy the islands in 1766 in the first place. Spain had, hence when Argentina frees itself from spain , takes ALL their american territories (ilegally occuppied or not ^^ )
They had no right to occupy unoccupied islands, right...
|
Sorry double post 
|
United States41960 Posts
On June 17 2011 11:41 Carras wrote:
Britain had no legitimate rigth to occupy the islands in 1766 in the first place. Spain had, hence when Argentina frees itself from spain , takes ALL their american territories (ilegally occuppied or not ^^ )
Why stop at American territories? Why not claim Spain? Why not the whole world?
You can't just claim places. Britain defeated Argentina in the Falklands War and you don't see us claiming the Argentinian mainland. Have the decency to treat us as respectfully as we treat you.
|
On June 17 2011 11:41 Carras wrote:
Britain had no legitimate rigth to occupy the islands in 1766 in the first place. Spain had, hence when Argentina frees itself from spain , takes ALL their american territories (ilegally occuppied or not ^^ )
Spain's "right" is from a treaty where two countries basically said half of the planet belong to each of them without talking to anyone else. It's not really a very strong claim, if they didn't occupy it.
|
On June 17 2011 11:43 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2011 11:41 Carras wrote:
Britain had no legitimate rigth to occupy the islands in 1766 in the first place. Spain had, hence when Argentina frees itself from spain , takes ALL their american territories (ilegally occuppied or not ^^ ) Why stop at American territories? Why not claim Spain? Why not the whole world? You can't just claim places.
He clearly is a troll unworthy of your time.
|
Argentina stole it from Spain who stole it from Britain. Do they teach history in Argentina?
|
On June 17 2011 11:43 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2011 11:41 Carras wrote:
Britain had no legitimate rigth to occupy the islands in 1766 in the first place. Spain had, hence when Argentina frees itself from spain , takes ALL their american territories (ilegally occuppied or not ^^ ) Why stop at American territories? Why not claim Spain? Why not the whole world? You can't just claim places.
"Claiming places is wrong"coming from the Britain empire and btw you just justified island being british becouse they where claimed first.. i think we r done here =)
|
On June 17 2011 11:47 Carras wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2011 11:43 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2011 11:41 Carras wrote:
Britain had no legitimate rigth to occupy the islands in 1766 in the first place. Spain had, hence when Argentina frees itself from spain , takes ALL their american territories (ilegally occuppied or not ^^ ) Why stop at American territories? Why not claim Spain? Why not the whole world? You can't just claim places. "Claiming places is wrong"coming from the Britain empire and btw you just justified island being british becouse they where claimed first.. i think we r done here =)
I think you are done here, because you stopped making any sense.
|
United States41960 Posts
On June 17 2011 11:47 Carras wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2011 11:43 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2011 11:41 Carras wrote:
Britain had no legitimate rigth to occupy the islands in 1766 in the first place. Spain had, hence when Argentina frees itself from spain , takes ALL their american territories (ilegally occuppied or not ^^ ) Why stop at American territories? Why not claim Spain? Why not the whole world? You can't just claim places. "Claiming places is wrong"coming from the Britain empire and btw you just justified island being british becouse they where claimed first.. i think we r done here =)
I am not personally accountable for the British Empire. That was actually some other British people a few years back. But if you're agreed imperialism is wrong and that places should belong to the people who were born there and whose fathers were born there and so forth then we're agreed, they are British.
Argentina is the imperialist aggressor here.
|
On June 17 2011 11:47 Carras wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2011 11:43 KwarK wrote:On June 17 2011 11:41 Carras wrote:
Britain had no legitimate rigth to occupy the islands in 1766 in the first place. Spain had, hence when Argentina frees itself from spain , takes ALL their american territories (ilegally occuppied or not ^^ ) Why stop at American territories? Why not claim Spain? Why not the whole world? You can't just claim places. "Claiming places is wrong"coming from the Britain empire and btw you just justified island being british becouse they where claimed first.. i think we r done here =)
I believe he means claiming without acting. Unless you actually settle on the open space, you have no right to claim. I'm not even sure why I'm still trying...
|
On June 17 2011 11:37 KwarK wrote:
(with thanks to wikipedia)
Britain occupied the islands in 1766. In 1774 the settlement was abandoned but a plaque was left claiming the islands for Britain (this was a good 40 years before Argentina existed). Spain then claimed them and although they left in 1806 left a plaque claiming their ownership. So now we have two nations claiming ownership, both before Argentina existed.
In 1820 the first Argentinian ship lands on the islands after several hundred years of European use. In 1832 after just 12 years of Argentine rule the British come back and reassert their claim dating back to 1774.
There is no historical case for Argentina. Some guy was squatting on them for 12 years. That does not make them Argentinian.
However, even if Britain was in the wrong in 1832 for reclaiming the islands that does not make Britain wrong now. The rights of the hypothetical Argentinians who maybe would have lived there had history been different does not outweigh the rights of the British people who live there now. History is full of things that could have been different if things had gone another way but you don't get to pick your hypothetical and then invade places. The people living there are real, they have the right of self determinism and they have exercised it.
I really understand your point and as all things.. some ppl will agree.. others will disagree.
But you should stop using the phrase... "Before Argentina Exisited"... because.. if that is a point in the argument to claim somehting.. South America should be ruled by Spain and Portugal.
I mean.. the tribes who lived before the colonization should claim South America as theirs.. USA should have no claim to their lands. in 1700 1/2 of the current countries did not exist.
Personally i dont mind who own the Falklands/Malvinas .. the war in 1982 was a poor attempt to distract people. Unfourtunatly only because the Kelpers wish to remain British is not a good argument.. if it was a good argument.. Spain would cese exisiting and be divided. Not sure how much... but there are several comunitis wanting independece in spain aswell. Its not the same.. but only because they want something it doesnt mean its that way.
But i agree that its too late for Argentina to make a claim or whatever for the islands.. as posted above.. its just political show from the President.
|
On June 17 2011 11:27 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2011 11:25 BloodNinja wrote:On June 17 2011 11:20 Luckbox wrote:
That's some tenuous logic That statement describes pretty much every colonial claim as well. The people living there are British and whenever anyone asks them what they want they say they want to be British. In what way is that tenuous? What better justification for a claim could there possibly be?
I was making a broad generalization for colonial claims in general in which a majority of times previously occupied lands were re-claimed by European powers without regards to their original inhabitants. If you read my quick edit afterwards, you would see I have no issues with the British claim on the Falklands as those people wish to continue to be British.
|
Well given that all the people there enjoy their british citizenship then it should stay british as the people request, it seems fair to me. Also since Argentina tried to invade and failed and now are trying to take it seems unreasonable.
FURTHERMORE!
That guy who got argentinian citizenship is just an attentionwhore...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
