On June 18 2011 00:53 Svetz wrote: @Tossrage Did you create a new account just to get owned by Kwark in one of the most humerous cases of reading the article your quoting so far today!
Also your second comment doesn't even make any sense? Argentina invaded the falklands not the other way around...
Of course, that little dirty detail finds its way to get lose. When in a modern war conflict, there is this thing called "exclusion zone". That is the only space where the war and agression will be displayed.
Being as UK uses de allmighty IMPERIAL unit system, one can understand why they would extend the agression outside these limits. Respect.
The Falkland islands are considered British soil, so essentially you invaded Britain. That is an act of war, even though neither country officially declared war. As I pointed out before, the Argentinian fleet went a route that would prevent our submarines following any further and a decision had to be made. I am sorry that so many people died, but it had to be done.
On June 17 2011 20:38 Deleuze wrote: They have run out or coins at the moment as there poor economy doesn't permit them to make any more.
Haha, sorry but this is so wrong it's funny. I don't know where you read this. The coin thing has nothing to do with our economy but with our bus system :p
(Argentina was one of the few countries that kept on growing in the middle of the economic crisis and holds on to some big reserves right now).
On June 17 2011 10:09 Glaven wrote: Wait so the rules goes, if more of my people live in a certain geographical region, it's ours? Screw britains imperial legacy.
Has to be the post post in the thread, lols. As you're in posting from Canada you should screw britain's imperial legacy too and give it back to the inuits. Pretty sure they won't be rioting over a game of sport anyway. Doesn't sound correct does it?
On June 17 2011 10:07 Elegy wrote: Given the entirety of the population is British through and through, its simply ludicrous to expect the British to agree to an annexation proposal by the Argentinian government.
Argentina obviously won't resort to force, the situations are almost incomparably different. I agree with GoTunk as well, focusing on external foreign policy and a historic "aggressor" is a great way to divert attention from internal problems
Wait so the rules goes, if more of my people live in a certain geographical region, it's ours? Screw britains imperial legacy.
On June 17 2011 10:07 Elegy wrote: Given the entirety of the population is British through and through, its simply ludicrous to expect the British to agree to an annexation proposal by the Argentinian government.
Argentina obviously won't resort to force, the situations are almost incomparably different. I agree with GoTunk as well, focusing on external foreign policy and a historic "aggressor" is a great way to divert attention from internal problems
Wait so the rules goes, if more of my people live in a certain geographical region, it's ours? Screw britains imperial legacy.
i find this funny coming from a canadian, ROFL
As a Metis Canadian, I'm gonna add a ROFL here too.
On June 17 2011 10:09 Glaven wrote: Wait so the rules goes, if more of my people live in a certain geographical region, it's ours? Screw britains imperial legacy.
Has to be the post post in the thread, lols. As you're in posting from Canada you should screw britain's imperial legacy too and give it back to the inuits. Pretty sure they won't be rioting over a game of sport anyway. Doesn't sound correct does it?
Vancouver does not equate all of Canada. I doubt you are from NK but if you are that's saying all North Koreans all want to use nukes and love communism.
England existed long before Argentina was a country and those islands should remais british because the people there still want to be british..
It seems to me Argentina just want to take the islands for themselves again after failing in the first war and even after the falkland islanders want to remain british..
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.
I love this. Throughout history, and all over the world, cultures have exterminated each other, and populated the territory the other once occupied.
Australia and the US are prime examples of where a country invaded, exterminated the local populace, replaced them with their own countrymen, and claimed the land. And after the fact, the claim is irrefutable, due to this "self determination". Although of course, the people there now aren't the people originally from the area, but hey, whatever. I'm not picking on the UK, this has happened all over the world.
I'm pretty sure all this self-determination stuff is just a justification for ethnic cleansing. Y'know, rather than cohabitation and fair representation in governance.
I'll make sure I keep a note in case I ever want to get rich and lose my soul in the process. "Exterminate local populace until all who remain are my supporters, if none exist, ship them in from a part of the world that does support me. Claim that my brethren and I have a right to self determination. Form my own country. Sell country. Rinse and repeat with another part of the world."
What does this have to do with this situation at all. The entire island speaks English. Only one person on the islands wants his country to become part of Argentina so that grants him the right to "fair representation in governance" that has apparently been violated?
So I live in Florida and I think Florida should become a Spanish colony again and since it isn't that means everyone around me is an "imperialist white-man that wants to ethnically cleanse the natives" and that's the reason it won't go back to Spain? It not going back to Spain is a violation of my fair representation?
Please correct me if I misunderstood your argument there, but that's what I got out of it.
edit: The post below me makes your post seem even less relevant to this situation.
It demonstrates that self determination is severely flawed and cannot be used to justify this.
How far away is this island from the UK? What inherently allows any person or country to claim land previously uninhabited by people? What constitutes uninhabited land? There are vast areas of the US with no human population. Can I carve out a country in the middle of it because it's uninhabited?
I don't think Argentina has any rightful claim to the island, but I sure as hell don't think the UK does either. But then again, most people hold the view that you should keep all the land you conquer through military might. I'm just saying it has no basis in morality, and an argument that any country somehow has "rightful claim" to any external territory is ludicrous. Call it what it is, it's land acquired and held on to through a superior military force.
How does "the white man" conquering a place 300 years ago make self-determination flawed?
Honestly, if you don't believe in self-determination you sound like the imperialists of old you criticize so much.
A group of people come to a consensus as to which political entity they want to be a part of with their own freedom of choice and that has no moral basis? Why do you believe their choice counts for nothing?
Because I don't believe as such a thing as a "rightful" claim?
Do you think that the confederacy should have been allowed to secede from the US? Do you think that the approximately 37% of Scots who favour independence should be able to kill the rest of the 63% of the population and declare their independence? Do you think that those 37% should be able to secede independently of the other 63%?
When it comes to countries and land, there is no such thing as a "rightful" claim. I live in Australia. I don't see why the Aboriginals have "rightful claim" to the land because their ancestors have lived here long before the Europeans have. I don't see why Caucasians have any "rightful claim" to this land because they've conquered and settled the land. They are people, and I don't see why people should have a claim to the land. It's just as arbitrary as people claiming parts of Antarctica or areas in the sea, both of which have been inhabited by humans.
When it comes to land, a claim is a claim. There is no such thing as a "rightful" claim. Claims in land are made and sustained through military might and diplomatic guile.
If you believe in self determination so strongly, should anyone living in any country be able claim to be a citizen of Sweden because they want to take advantage of the good welfare in that country? Why can't I claim to be a citizen of every country in the world? Self determination is a fiction created to justify atrocities. That is all.
On June 17 2011 10:09 Glaven wrote: Wait so the rules goes, if more of my people live in a certain geographical region, it's ours? Screw britains imperial legacy.
Has to be the post post in the thread, lols. As you're in posting from Canada you should screw britain's imperial legacy too and give it back to the inuits. Pretty sure they won't be rioting over a game of sport anyway. Doesn't sound correct does it?
Going to have to concur with it being the best post.
>First claimed by the UK >First inhabited by the UK >All inhabitants but one want to be part British >Has been indisputably British for 200 years, or about 8 generations >Defended in a war against an aggressive nation >>Is Argentinian because one lived there for 12 years and there's a ridiculous imperialistic treaty that had nothing to do with the UK
Whatever, we all have stupid things we believe. Not a big deal to me; Britain has been pretty terrible in many ways when it comes to territory so I hope we get past the issue and don't hold grudges.
On June 17 2011 15:29 Mephiztopheles1 wrote: the island was under Spanish jurisdiction and according to this little small thing called "right of succession", I know, something the british never concerned themselves with (why would they, they were bound to be the next empire), this piece of land is inherited by that country which later claimed independence and was the closest to the island called Provincias del Río de la Plata, later to be named Argentina.
What's the geographic limit of the right of succession? Why is it that the Falklands (islands far, far outside Argentina's territorial waters) should naturally fall to Argentina after the defeat of Spain? At the time of the war of American independence Ireland was an English colony. America successfully defeated England, does that give her the right to claim ownership of the Republic of Ireland today against the wishes of the native inhabitants?
Ok, first off, stop using analogies without any sense of history, it's bad. I will repeat myself, since you obviously did not read what I wrote. The Malvinas/Falklands were under the jurisdiction of the Spanish crown, which, gave command of it to the governorate of Buenos Aires. In this case, the geographic limit you're asking about is the Treaty of Tordesillas. But it's an old piece of papeeeeer!, yeah, and it's also the basis in which all modern South american countries based themselves to establish their borders, with the grace of England, Spain, France, the United States and the dutch (They did this very quickly because they knew that with all these colonies claiming independence early in the nineteenth century they would need economic help rebuilding and building more stuff so what better way than acknowledging their right of succession? And so they did and boom, external debt "began.") It was the only treaty that satisfied most people so it was used. Sure it was ignored by these superpowers in anything they could claim dibs on like modern Guyana and Suriname, but in everything else, including, at the moment, the Malvinas/Falklands they had no interest in, the right of succession was applied. So that's why America didn't claim Ireland, there was no paper saying they could have it, plus, seriously? you hail from the UK yet you're oblivious as to how exactly it is an empire works? Losing one colony =/= losing your whole empire. So in other words, if you're going to use examples of independence, at least have the decency to be informed of the grounds the territorial claims of the independence wars are based on They are two VERY different cases.
Your popularity is approaching zero? Gogo lets look for another state on which the people can focus their hatred . One of the oldest political tricks in the world.
But otherwise I dont know too much about Argentinas present shape. Can anyone confirm or deny my guess?
On June 17 2011 15:29 Mephiztopheles1 wrote: the island was under Spanish jurisdiction and according to this little small thing called "right of succession", I know, something the british never concerned themselves with (why would they, they were bound to be the next empire), this piece of land is inherited by that country which later claimed independence and was the closest to the island called Provincias del Río de la Plata, later to be named Argentina.
What's the geographic limit of the right of succession? Why is it that the Falklands (islands far, far outside Argentina's territorial waters) should naturally fall to Argentina after the defeat of Spain? At the time of the war of American independence Ireland was an English colony. America successfully defeated England, does that give her the right to claim ownership of the Republic of Ireland today against the wishes of the native inhabitants?
Ok, first off, stop using analogies without any sense of history, it's bad. I will repeat myself, since you obviously did not read what I wrote. The Malvinas/Falklands were under the jurisdiction of the Spanish crown, which, gave command of it to the governorate of Buenos Aires. In this case, the geographic limit you're asking about is the Treaty of Tordesillas. But it's an old piece of papeeeeer!, yeah, and it's also the basis in which all modern South american countries based themselves to establish their borders, with the grace of England, Spain, France, the United States and the dutch (They did this very quickly because they knew that with all these colonies claiming independence early in the nineteenth century they would need economic help rebuilding and building more stuff so what better way than acknowledging their right of succession? And so they did and boom, external debt "began.") It was the only treaty that satisfied most people so it was used. Sure it was ignored by these superpowers in anything they could claim dibs on like modern Guyana and Suriname, but in everything else, including, at the moment, the Malvinas/Falklands they had no interest in, the right of succession was applied. So that's why America didn't claim Ireland, there was no paper saying they could have it, plus, seriously? you hail from the UK yet you're oblivious as to how exactly it is an empire works? Losing one colony =/= losing your whole empire. So in other words, if you're going to use examples of independence, at least have the decency to be informed of the grounds the territorial claims of the independence wars are based on They are two VERY different cases.
On June 18 2011 01:48 shell wrote: Give them back?
England existed long before Argentina was a country and those islands should remais british because the people there still want to be british..
It seems to me Argentina just want to take the islands for themselves again after failing in the first war and even after the falkland islanders want to remain british..
It's stupid and they have no case imo
Geographically they do have a case. Politically the British should keep them as that is what the majority of the islanders want. Economically it's all about the possibility of oil.
On June 18 2011 02:32 Mafe wrote: Your popularity is approaching zero? Gogo lets look for another state on which the people can focus their hatred . One of the oldest political tricks in the world.
But otherwise I dont know too much about Argentinas present shape. Can anyone confirm or deny my guess?
Don't know much about popularity %, because those fluctuate a lot depending on who's measuring them, but Kirchner will probably win the presidential elections in first round, that most polls agree on.
Wouldn't applying the very same argentinian law just disprove the entire claim to the islands? Argentinian law states that continual occupation of a land for at least 20 years, peacefully, and uninterrupted, makes such land theirs.
On June 18 2011 02:42 Hitokiri wrote: Wouldn't applying the very same argentinian law just disprove the entire claim to the islands? Argentinian law states that continual occupation of a land for at least 20 years, peacefully, and uninterrupted, makes such land theirs.
Granted this is civil law, however it still could be applicable.
Granted for civil occupation. All soil is argentinian "under argentinian jurisdiction" (sorry I don't know how to translate this into english) no matter the owner/who's currently occupying it, and all resources below and above ground are argentinian, no matter the owner again.
If I go to my backyard, make a hole in the ground and Skittles start flowing from from the hole, then the argentinian government has a right to claim those Skittles.
It's also not applicable, since for that law to apply, the previous owner of unoccupied land has to show no interest in it (which Argentina has).
There's also a similar law in England iirc, and in many other places, and it's serves other purpose, not deciding country limits.
EPT
