| Forum Index > Closed |
KwarK
United States44279 Posts
On June 17 2011 12:27 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Problem solved. Now we can all argue about the Antarctica. I'm pretty sure Britain defeated Spain several times so our claim to Antarctica is pretty solid. | ||
|
jello_biafra
United Kingdom6642 Posts
On June 17 2011 12:23 Geolich wrote: good thread serving to highlight that the wasp superiority complex is alive and well (actually thats unfair on some Brits - its mainly the english) welcome to 2011 - its not the 16th C, you are not a colonial superpower anymore. Britain didn't even exist in the 16th Century... And yeah, as InvalidID said, the UK wasn't a true superpower until the 19th Century at which point it was the largest and most powerful ever known and your very own country owes its existence to it. | ||
|
InvalidID
United States1050 Posts
On June 17 2011 12:23 Geolich wrote: good thread serving to highlight that the wasp superiority complex is alive and well (actually thats unfair on some Brits - its mainly the english) welcome to 2011 - its not the 16th C, you are not a colonial superpower anymore. I do not see that at all. I see British people defending the self determination of an island, that even though it was a colony, was one of the most benign imaginable sort, as the islands were uninhabited prior to European settlement. I see Argentinians defending their claim based on a mixture of nationalism and (understandable) anti-British sentiment. While Britain may not be a superpower anymore, they are definitely a "power", and carry the strong backing, and a special relationship with, the worlds only remaining military superpower. And Britian was not a "superpower" until the late 18th century by earliest estimations, and not a true superpower until the 19th century, following the defeat of Napoleonic France. | ||
|
jerryjohnston
Japan34 Posts
| ||
|
Al ghouti
Argentina39 Posts
On June 17 2011 12:32 InvalidID wrote: I do not see that at all. I see British people defending the self determination of an island, that even though it was a colony, was one of the most benign imaginable sort, as the islands were uninhabited prior to European settlement. I see Argentinians defending their claim based on a mixture of nationalism and (understandable) anti-British sentiment. While Britain may not be a superpower anymore, they are definitely a "power", and carry the strong backing, and a special relationship with, the worlds only remaining military superpower. And Britian was not a "superpower" until the late 18th century by earliest estimations, and not a true superpower until the 19th century, following the defeat of Napoleonic France. I dont think the claim is due to anti-British sentiment.. i mean.. there is a large portion of descendants of Brits also in Argentina.. As you stated.. There was a claim.. there was a war.. England won.. England set the rules as in all wars... Victors choose the rules.. its just that the current political machine of argentina will never accept it. I understand that people died and its sad.. but if you loose a war.. its the price to pay. | ||
|
Mephiztopheles1
1124 Posts
On June 17 2011 12:21 Elegy wrote: Ah, but what of the the right of the Argentinians to determine for themselves what lands they wish to arbitrarily appropriate? It doesn't count. Žižek brilliantly put it as the eurocentric cultural determination of values. In other words, when empires or countries of the "North" say something, it's valid and everyone agrees to that (Killing puppies and eating them is baaaaad!, killing cows and eating them is not, blah blah blah) but when someone from the "South" says something, it has to go under a continuous scrutiny of whatever fields of knowledge are involved (X scientist discovers something, but he's from Peru/Philippines/Nigeria/etc, so his discovery will only count the moment it is written in english and when the Harvard association conducts their own research, do the associated intellectual property errands and claim it as their own, then the prior study can go somewhere in a footnote or a thank you cake). The academic world is full of that and the Malvinas/Falklands is a very well documented problem of this. In this case, english historians make british people believe it was the british who populated the Malvinas first and they have every right and viceversa. So, in other words, not counting the audacity of having anyone believe that Wikipedia is an actual valid resource for a historical debate, Kwark is merely reproducing the cultural beliefs of his "self determination" that he will never put in doubt because of his ideology (again, borrowing Žižek's use of this concept), regarding anybody who tries to counter-argue it merely someone who is "not very well informed." In conclusion, if very well informed historians from both sides have not been able to reach a decisive conclusion regarding this piece of land (other than nobody knows who set foot on it first), I highly doubt we'll find the answer here at the hands of forum-goers. It is a highly amusing debate nonetheless. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44279 Posts
| ||
|
Aristodemus
England2014 Posts
On June 17 2011 12:32 InvalidID wrote: I do not see that at all. I see British people defending the self determination of an island, that even though it was a colony, was one of the most benign imaginable sort, as the islands were uninhabited prior to European settlement. I see Argentinians defending their claim based on a mixture of nationalism and (understandable) anti-British sentiment. While Britain may not be a superpower anymore, they are definitely a "power", and carry the strong backing, and a special relationship with, the worlds only remaining military superpower. And Britian was not a "superpower" until the late 18th century by earliest estimations, and not a true superpower until the 19th century, following the defeat of Napoleonic France. Hmm, this last point is open to debate. I would say when we defeated the major superpower of its day in 1588 we became a superpower. If not though, definitely after the Bank of England was created. After the battle of Quiberon Bay we became the only superpower too, Napoleon's revolution changed this temporarily, until the two wars with Germany crippled the empire. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44279 Posts
On June 17 2011 12:46 Mephiztopheles1 wrote:Kwark is merely reproducing the cultural beliefs of his "self determination" that he will never put in doubt because of his ideology Maybe I'm just brainwashed by my western culture but I think people deciding questions of nationality for themselves is good. | ||
|
Laids
United Kingdom596 Posts
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? The labour government made a deal with BAA systems to put them on hold so that they wouldn't be paying for the building of them, lengthening the time it's going to take to build them, thereby increasing the total cost by a fair margin. It's like ordering an XBOX out of a catalogue and paying for it over 72 months, it will be cheaper in the short-term, but by the end you will have paid considerably more than what you first agreed on. I believe this still holds true with the current coalition. Hand over the thirteen colonies USA, we have a flag and everything. | ||
|
InvalidID
United States1050 Posts
On June 17 2011 12:47 Aristodemus wrote: Hmm, this last point is open to debate. I would say when we defeated the major superpower of its day in 1588 we became a superpower. If not though, definitely after the Bank of England was created. After the battle of Quiberon Bay we became the only superpower too, Napoleon's revolution changed this temporarily, until the two wars with Germany crippled the empire. The general definition of a superpower, includes the ability to direct force on a global scale. The whole debate is really a matter of semantics, but by the traditional definition of the word it would be when Britain gained a global empire. | ||
|
Aristodemus
England2014 Posts
On June 17 2011 12:51 InvalidID wrote: The general definition of a superpower, includes the ability to direct force on a global scale. The whole debate is really a matter of semantics, but by the traditional definition of the word it would be when Britain gained a global empire. So... US isnt a superpower today as they have no empire? My definition is when you have a force that is extremely unlikely to be defeated. Edit: Anyway, I wont derail this thread further. | ||
|
Sanctimonius
United Kingdom861 Posts
 | ||
|
InvalidID
United States1050 Posts
On June 17 2011 12:54 Aristodemus wrote: So... US isnt a superpower today as they have no empire? My definition is when you have a force that is extremely unlikely to be defeated. We do still have an empire, consisting of a bunch of islands in the pacific: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/18/EEZ-USA.png . But more relevantly, we have the ability to project force on any point of the globe through a large blue water navy with carrier strike groups. Current US military doctrine is to remain capable of an overwhelming conventional military strike on any given point on the globe, at any given time, within 24 hours of its order. Edit: Yes I agree, as I said before it is a silly debate of semantics. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5080 Posts
It doesn't count. Žižek brilliantly put it as the eurocentric cultural determination of values. In other words, when empires or countries of the "North" say something, it's valid and everyone agrees to that (Killing puppies and eating them is baaaaad!, killing cows and eating them is not, blah blah blah) but when someone from the "South" says something, it has to go under a continuous scrutiny of whatever fields of knowledge are involved (X scientist discovers something, but he's from Peru/Philippines/Nigeria/etc, so his discovery will only count the moment it is written in english and when the Harvard association conducts their own research, do the associated intellectual property errands and claim it as their own, then the prior study can go somewhere in a footnote or a thank you cake). The academic world is full of that and the Malvinas/Falklands is a very well documented problem of this. In this case, english historians make british people believe it was the british who populated the Malvinas first and they have every right and viceversa. So, in other words, not counting the audacity of having anyone believe that Wikipedia is an actual valid resource for a historical debate, Kwark is merely reproducing the cultural beliefs of his "self determination" that he will never put in doubt because of his ideology (again, borrowing Žižek's use of this concept), regarding anybody who tries to counter-argue it merely someone who is "not very well informed." In conclusion, if very well informed historians from both sides have not been able to reach a decisive conclusion regarding this piece of land (other than nobody knows who set foot on it first), I highly doubt we'll find the answer here at the hands of forum-goers. It is a highly amusing debate nonetheless. In conclusion, you spent three paragraphs talking down to everyone and ending up looking not very smart. Žižek is another simplistic reactionary. You tangentially connect his agitprop (and that's all it is, academic agitprop) to the topic as part of another dose of Marxist nonsense containing arbitrary and simplistic (like so much of Marxism) class divisions (the "North" and "South"), more Marxist babble about double standards (also, as if complaining about some fantastical double standard in the scientific community between white scientists and non-whites has anything to do with anything other than your tortuous ideology where everything is somehow connected and relevant) and we will finish off with the veritable classic "You are actually so deeply brainwashed that it is impossible for you to understand how wrong you are. It isn't your fault, but I am highly amused by it." Hint: the old-school term, "mystification," is a hell of a lot cooler. Probably more effective because it doesn't sound so nakedly hostile too. What highly amuses me is Marxists who think that their concepts and criticisms of current events are anything more than exercises in trying to save the dream of Karl from the nightmares of Josef and Mao, and a heavy, heavy dose of sour grapes for losing the Cold War. | ||
|
ChicoLopez
United States11 Posts
ah, link http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ni...the-falklands/ | ||
|
Ganjamaster
Argentina475 Posts
THERE IS A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN ARGENTINA IN LESS THAN 6 MONTHS. The political climate here is complex to say the least for anyone not versed in Argentine politics, but the bottom line is given the current government's leftist and populist characteristics, she (Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner) had to do this to show power given that showing weakness atm would be a huge problem for her. The unions are cornering her to get a place in the party lists for the election, while the death of her husband (who was the real dude in power) added a lot of instability to her grip on the peronist party (majority). Honestly, we have much bigger problems to worry about than the falkland islands. and BTW Argentina does not have a "real" standing army ffs, the current government took the trouble of disarming them to appease their leftist partisans who still hold grudges because of the dictatorship even though they were terrorists themselves (during the "Dirty War"), disgusting. Fuck the Falklands. | ||
|
ChicoLopez
United States11 Posts
| ||
|
xxxxxxb
155 Posts
On June 17 2011 09:13 Sanctimonius wrote:I'm genuinely interested to hear what people think on this issue, especially people from Argentina, because I've never been and I've never spoken to anyone from Argentina. What I've written is obviously biased, as any view on such a contentious issue would be - I'm British, of course I would want them to remain British. But I am honestly trying to see things from the other point of view, and most things written from an Argentine perspective centre on us being thieves and leaving it at that. Why should the islands be Argentinian now? And what should happen to the islanders if it did become Argentinian, keeping in mind that all except one has rejected Argentinian citizenship? First off, we have presidential elections this year. That's the reason behind the recent complain. I don't care about who own the islands or who holds the rights on them. There have been countless times in history where some guys walked over others to claim a place. Heck, I'm living in a place that was originally inhabited by indians (not the correct word, but my english is limited) that probably killed another indians to get it and so go on, until spaniards came. If we wanted a diplomatic end to this, our glorious military dictatorial regimen supported by USA blowed up that chance long time ago. And if we talk about a war ... well, sending unprepared youngsters to war is a very useful talent toi have. And we are sensible about this issue because is more recent, therefore you can easily relate. (e.g. my dad was """"recruited"""" by the militaries) Now what piss me off are british negating their imperialistic behavior, people claiming the isles have zero value, politicians from both sides giving a fuck about the people who died fighting their stupid war and particularly in this thread: wikipedia quotes. Really. | ||
|
jello_biafra
United Kingdom6642 Posts
On June 17 2011 13:11 ChicoLopez wrote: Well, at least Obama wants the two parties to talk about it. That's out president; praise our allies, support their enemies. ah, link http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ni...the-falklands/ On June 17 2011 13:16 ChicoLopez wrote: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100091346/another-slap-in-the-face-for-britain-the-obama-administration-sides-with-argentina-and-venezuela-in-oas-declaration-on-the-falklands/ As soon as oil is found Obama wants a piece of the cake, lol. | ||
| ||
|
|
Kung Fu Cup
Replay Cast
The PondCast
KCM Race Survival
Escore
IntoTheTV X SOOP
CranKy Ducklings
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Shopify Rebellion Sundays
Spirit vs Mixu
Clem vs TBD
RSL Revival
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
