|
On March 12 2013 16:28 Jaaaaasper wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 16:23 thirtyapm wrote:
Argentinians, just man up and take the island.
You know, like how Britain took all her colonies. Yeah because all of nato wouldn't go freedom the shit out of them if they tried that. That is the stupidest post I have seen in here yet, including the line I started mine with. Are you really suggesting that they start a war over a territory that Britain has a much better claim too, and whose population wants to remain British?
No if that's what I meant then I wouldn't have written the second line "You know, like how Britain took all her colonies."
So since you have said that is the stupidest post, I'll have to say that was the stupidest interpretation of what it could mean.
|
On March 13 2013 10:27 thirtyapm wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 16:28 Jaaaaasper wrote:On March 12 2013 16:23 thirtyapm wrote:
Argentinians, just man up and take the island.
You know, like how Britain took all her colonies. Yeah because all of nato wouldn't go freedom the shit out of them if they tried that. That is the stupidest post I have seen in here yet, including the line I started mine with. Are you really suggesting that they start a war over a territory that Britain has a much better claim too, and whose population wants to remain British? No if that's what I meant then I wouldn't have written the second line "You know, like how Britain took all her colonies." So since you have said that is the stupidest post, I'll have to say that was the stupidest interpretation of what it could mean.
I am fairly certain that calling for a nation to man up and take a part of a foreign nation is hard to interpret as anything other than a call for military force. Please tell me how "Argentinians, just man up and take the island" isn't call for the use of military force?
|
every1 is dum lol lol lol lol
The fact is that, at this time, there is literally no justification for Argentina continuing to fight over the Falkland Islands. Even if the historical arguments didn't reduce to competing gibberish, which they do, nobody would consider them paramount over the wishes of the residents. It's just completely irrelevant at this point. The sabre-rattling is a little sad at best and North Korea-esque at worst.
|
Northern Ireland25534 Posts
Wow, nationalism, still a rallying call to the retarded even in the 21st century.
Incidentally, I think it may have been farvacola who mentioned 'national self-determination' earlier. I'm not being obtuse, but why didn't the discussion end at that point, or least mutate to the interesting third option, i.e it becoming an independent territory?
In cases like this (as opposed to say, I don't know, my own country!), where there's an overwhelming majority who wish to remain within the embrace of the UK, what possible justification is there for not acceding to their wishes?
It's about time that colonial guilt wasn't used as a stick to beat the British with at every opportunity. End of the day, most nations have behaved abominably at some point, but it seems every other trip David Cameron is going to some site and apologising for some atrocity hundreds of years ago. Regrettable yes, but apologising for the sins of your (great great great) grandfathers does close to fuck all in terms of dealing with modern societal issues.
Why not just, I don't know, stop living in some bygone age and accept the realities for what they are now, and try to do a better, more fair job going forward.
|
On March 13 2013 10:39 Wombat_NI wrote:
In cases like this (as opposed to say, I don't know, my own country!), where there's an overwhelming majority who wish to remain within the embrace of the UK, what possible justification is there for not acceding to their wishes?
1. Its mine, i want it, gime gime (billions of dollars in oil).
2. If you suck as a leader, nationalism is a good way to stay popular so people ignore how bad you are at leading.
|
On March 13 2013 10:34 lolmlg wrote:
every1 is dum lol lol lol lol
The fact is that, at this time, there is literally no justification for Argentina continuing to fight over the Falkland Islands. Even if the historical arguments didn't reduce to competing gibberish, which they do, nobody would consider them paramount over the wishes of the residents. It's just completely irrelevant at this point. The sabre-rattling is a little sad at best and North Korea-esque at worst.
I disagree, there is literal justification for Argentina to continue to fight over the Falkland Islands, there is historical precedent, they were basically kicked when they were down, and the population of the Falklands is truly meaningless in the sense that, its so few people, that it becomes obvious its a skeleton crew just to hold the rights to the island.
|
Northern Ireland25534 Posts
Who gives a flying fuck if there aren't many of them, they are people, many of whom have lived their for generations and generations.
Yeah let's throw them under the bus to grease the wheels of international politics.
|
On March 13 2013 11:23 Wombat_NI wrote:
Who gives a flying fuck if there aren't many of them, they are people, many of whom have lived their for generations and generations.
Yeah let's throw them under the bus to grease the wheels of international politics.
edit: sorry to bother
I dont support double standards.
|
On March 13 2013 12:39 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2013 11:23 Wombat_NI wrote:
Who gives a flying fuck if there aren't many of them, they are people, many of whom have lived their for generations and generations.
Yeah let's throw them under the bus to grease the wheels of international politics. + Show Spoiler +I dont support double standards.
How is this relevant to the thread?
It is two very different situations, and you should know that.
|
As has been mentioned before in this thread, Britain has more right to the Falklands than Argentina has to exist as a nation =p. I mean the british evicted a small garisson of spanish soldiers to claim the islands, the spanish killed probably millions of people in order to establish her south american colonies.
|
On March 13 2013 12:39 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2013 11:23 Wombat_NI wrote:
Who gives a flying fuck if there aren't many of them, they are people, many of whom have lived their for generations and generations.
Yeah let's throw them under the bus to grease the wheels of international politics. Snip I dont support double standards.
Also so good of you to use the such a polarised image of a Palestinian, I might as well put up a picture of Fred phelps of WBC fame and say therefore all old white men really hate gays.
|
some people in this thread would suffer from an immense headache if they had any clue about european history.
|
On March 13 2013 06:22 Melliflue wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2013 03:13 Orek wrote:
What I agree is that what islanders today think shouldn't be the deciding factor for this territorial dispute. I think I've made this point enough. Take - settle - wait - vote - win is such a flawed logic. On the other hand, I don't think Argentina's claim is flawless 100 vs 0. I read Striferawr's links and I now think UK's claim is not as solid as I used to think, but not enough to convince me to think Argentina is the rightful owner. This is not a math problem, so there is no perfectly right nor wrong answer. When disputed, the solutions are
1. military force
2. negotiation
3. ICJ ruling
Someone is unhappy whichever way is taken. If Argentina is so confident that their claim is legitimate, why refuse ICJ offer from UK side 3 times? Not that ICJ is perfect, but it is very rare that currently ruling side agrees yet complaining side declines. If negotiation doesn't work, then there is no place to go anyways. I know you've said you think it is flawed but why do you think it is flawed? Why is "Take - settle - wait - vote" a flawed logic? I don't think it should be done, but it is something that should be stopped at stage 1 or 2. When stages 1 to 3 have already passed, how would you suggest solving the problem? Override the wishes of the people? Also, you seem to have a different idea of "territory" to me and what it should mean, so could you explain what could make a territory legitimate? To take the example used by other people, should the US be considered illegitimate? By the way, I won't respond to Striferawr for a similar reason. He/she seems to have a different idea to me about how such problems should be solved. I care about what is best for people now, so what happened 150 years ago is almost entirely irrelevant, unless somebody explains to me how the current people of Argentina are suffering now because of that. Please don't say "oil" because that is fairly recent and wasn't known about during the Falklands war, so it is not the reason for the invasion then.
I think you are talking about the example I wrote before, so, let me quote it here again.
At an imaginary disputed islands
1. Country A breaks every treaty and international law and invade the islands that Country B owns
2. Country A wins and expesl all native citizens of Country B
3. immigrate people from Country A
4. refuse to negotiate for 200 years or something
5. boom, everyone on the islands wants to stay in Country A
I strongly disagree with the idea that islands should automatically belong to Country A just because everyone on the islands today are happy that way. It promotes war and rogue countries invading anohter country without any punishment. If step 4 was 5 years instead of 200 years, I think many people would agree. As I said in another post, human society is in constant struggle in finding a good middle ground. If step 4 was relatively short like 1 month or 1 year, then Country A looks to have no legitimacy. At the same time, if Step 4 was ,say, 500 or 2000 years, then it might not make sense to return the islands to Country B at that point. Every case is different, and elapsed time is not the only factor, but it should make sense. This has been the way territories are established for thousands of years in human history, so I wouldn't say every land should go back to the original owners. However, for relatively recent ones where Country A's move at step 1 and 2 were clearly recorded obvious violations of the rules at the time, then these islands should belong to Country B no matter how current islanders think. It does not mean that Country B should just kick everyone out on the islands once reaquired the islands. In reality, compromise needs to happen so that the impact to islanders lives becomes small, but sovereignty of the islands should go back to Country B. Overridding the wishes of people might be necessary for the sake of justice and punishing Country A for the wrong move. It is not a perfect solution obviously. Where to draw the line is difficult. Depending on how far we go back and how to consider individual situations, the world will be a mess with no country having any legitimacy including US as you said. But if we ignore what I just wrote, then any country with military superiority can invade a territory (or simply through emigration) and hold an election after a while to "legitimately" expand their borders.
In short, I am against this simple "locals decided according to self-determination, so let them belong to whichever they want" idea when these locals shouldn't have been there in the first place. Referendum shouldn't matter in this case because it is "staged" in a sense.
That said, as I have consistently expressed, Argentina didn't really have any indigenous people on Falkland/Malvinas, so the example above doesn't apply here and Argentina's claim is weak IMO. Referendum or not, UK has a much better case. AFAIK, no treaty/international law was broken by British at the time of reoccupation in 1833. That, I think, is what matters the most.
|
So why was only the british half of the population able to vote? 1600 of 2900...
User was warned for this post
|
On March 13 2013 16:48 exog wrote:
So why was only the british half of the population able to vote? 1600 of 2900...
User was warned for this post
there are people under 18 and british armed forces which are not allowed to vote which make up to the 2900 i think.
|
The islands beeing british is just a relic from the british empire.
To me It makes no sense to control territorys that far away from your homeland.
The english claim that the falklands are english is as credible as the english claim that the usa is english.
When islands are to small to be independant, they should belong to the closest independant nation, wich in this case is argentinia.
The islands could well be independant btw, dont realy see a problem with that.
|
On March 13 2013 17:46 Rassy wrote:
The islands beeing british is just a relic from the british empire.
It makes no sense to control territorys that far away from your homeland.
The english claim that the falklands are english is as credible as the english claim that the usa is english.
When islands are to small to be independant, they should belong to the closest independant nation, wich in this case is argentinia.
Who decides what is too small to be independent? Can Germany claim the Netherlands because they think you are too small? Can Iraq claim Kuwait because it thinks its too small, can Russia Claim Georgia can India claim Pakistan can China claim Japan? Proximity and Size are really stupid arguments and anyone can claim any country with those arguments. Bunching countries together because they are close together has a history of failure and genocide in many places.
We could also say Argentina is a relic of the spanish empire and should be given back to the natives (mostly wiped out) we could say give France,England,Spain etc back to Italy because they used to be a part of the Roman Empire, if more than a generation of people have lived there is should be left to self determination.
Self Determination of peoples is enshrined into the united nations, obviously people emigrating to a country then calling a referendum is silly but these people have been here for 200 years, 200 years ago most countries in the world didn't exist and there wasn't even a native population on the islands.The Falklands are culturally British, the people want to be British so why should they be given up to the nearest country (500km away...)
|
I wonder what it would be like to live in the Falklands. I have seen some pictures when i was smaller but would be really curious to know from someone living there. I didn' t know there was that much Oil there, i wasn' t aware that there is Oil in Argentina as well?
|
On March 13 2013 18:13 pebble444 wrote:
I wonder what it would be like to live in the Falklands. I have seen some pictures when i was smaller but would be really curious to know from someone living there. I didn' t know there was that much Oil there, i wasn' t aware that there is Oil in Argentina as well?
Any time there's a conflict now, conspiracy theorists start saying "It's all over oil." when in reality, the battle for resources far transcends beyond merely oil. If Britain really was concerned about their oil resources falling prey to hostile nations, they probably would not have granted independence to their colonies in the Middle East. Truthfully, the UK is quite involved in the Middle East, but does not need to plant their flag in the soil (except perhaps in Basra, Iraq) to maintain their national investments in the region.
The Falkland Islands, as an international conflict, is actually really insignificant compared to many contemporary conflicts that are killing thousands of people, and have killed millions.
|
United States42867 Posts
On March 13 2013 17:46 Rassy wrote:
The islands beeing british is just a relic from the british empire.
To me It makes no sense to control territorys that far away from your homeland.
The english claim that the falklands are english is as credible as the english claim that the usa is english.
When islands are to small to be independant, they should belong to the closest independant nation, wich in this case is argentinia.
The islands could well be independant btw, dont realy see a problem with that.
USA declared independence, the Falklands declared dependence, that comparison doesn't work. One comparison which would work though is that claiming the Falklands should be Argentinian is as credible as the claim that the USA should be Argentinian, both were previously claimed by Spain and both have since gained populations which don't want to be part of Spain and have their own cultural identity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.oocities.org/guiltypalestinianteachersparents/palestinianchildabuse071119.jpg)
