|
On March 13 2013 03:13 Orek wrote:
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.
"Shouldn't have been there in the first place." This kind of rhetoric might have had some legitimacy 200 years ago but not now. Not when there have been generations upon generations living and dying there. I don't understand why you dismiss this as something of no consequence.
Either way there has been a war fought over the islands and Argentina lost. The dispute should've ended back then.
|
On March 13 2013 23:59 revoN wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2013 03:13 Orek wrote:
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.
"Shouldn't have been there in the first place." This kind of rhetoric might have had some legitimacy 200 years ago but not now. Not when there have been generations upon generations living and dying there. I don't understand why you dismiss this as something of no consequence. Either way there has been a war fought over the islands and Argentina lost. The dispute should've ended back then.
What does it matter that a couple hundred people lived and died in there ?
If they like Brittain so much then they can move there.
These peoples existance has had one major purpose, to populate the island giving Brittain a lasting claim to it, its not like a bunch of Brittish sailors went out of their way to live there, they were commanded to populate the island, and are still serving their homeland every time they cast their vote on some stupid ballot.
Its a 200 year old occupation strategy, nothing more, they might be living civilian lives, but they are nothing but occupation agents from england.
|
United States42867 Posts
On March 14 2013 01:10 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2013 23:59 revoN wrote:On March 13 2013 03:13 Orek wrote:
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.
"Shouldn't have been there in the first place." This kind of rhetoric might have had some legitimacy 200 years ago but not now. Not when there have been generations upon generations living and dying there. I don't understand why you dismiss this as something of no consequence. Either way there has been a war fought over the islands and Argentina lost. The dispute should've ended back then. What does it matter that a couple hundred people lived and died in there ? If they like Brittain so much then they can move there. These peoples existance has had one major purpose, to populate the island giving Brittain a lasting claim to it, its not like a bunch of Brittish sailors went out of their way to live there, they were commanded to populate the island, and are still serving their homeland every time they cast their vote on some stupid ballot. Its a 200 year old occupation strategy, nothing more, they might be living civilian lives, but they are nothing but occupation agents from england.
Utter nonsense. I could equally claim that Argentina isn't a real nation, they're just a group of people squatting on the land belonging to the natives so they can claim it and live there and that it's all part of one big agenda.
|
On March 14 2013 01:10 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2013 23:59 revoN wrote:On March 13 2013 03:13 Orek wrote:
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.
"Shouldn't have been there in the first place." This kind of rhetoric might have had some legitimacy 200 years ago but not now. Not when there have been generations upon generations living and dying there. I don't understand why you dismiss this as something of no consequence. Either way there has been a war fought over the islands and Argentina lost. The dispute should've ended back then. What does it matter that a couple hundred people lived and died in there ? If they like Brittain so much then they can move there. These peoples existance has had one major purpose, to populate the island giving Brittain a lasting claim to it, its not like a bunch of Brittish sailors went out of their way to live there, they were commanded to populate the island, and are still serving their homeland every time they cast their vote on some stupid ballot. Its a 200 year old occupation strategy, nothing more, they might be living civilian lives, but they are nothing but occupation agents from england.
So Brazil should be given back to the native tribes yes?
|
On March 14 2013 01:40 _SpiRaL_ wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 01:10 D10 wrote:On March 13 2013 23:59 revoN wrote:On March 13 2013 03:13 Orek wrote:
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.
"Shouldn't have been there in the first place." This kind of rhetoric might have had some legitimacy 200 years ago but not now. Not when there have been generations upon generations living and dying there. I don't understand why you dismiss this as something of no consequence. Either way there has been a war fought over the islands and Argentina lost. The dispute should've ended back then. What does it matter that a couple hundred people lived and died in there ? If they like Brittain so much then they can move there. These peoples existance has had one major purpose, to populate the island giving Brittain a lasting claim to it, its not like a bunch of Brittish sailors went out of their way to live there, they were commanded to populate the island, and are still serving their homeland every time they cast their vote on some stupid ballot. Its a 200 year old occupation strategy, nothing more, they might be living civilian lives, but they are nothing but occupation agents from england. So Brazil should be given back to the native tribes yes?
Brazil has been independent since the 70s. It's a democracy. Native tribes are a minority. The Falkland Islands is a very different story from Brazil.
|
United States42867 Posts
On March 14 2013 01:47 dUTtrOACh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 01:40 _SpiRaL_ wrote:On March 14 2013 01:10 D10 wrote:On March 13 2013 23:59 revoN wrote:On March 13 2013 03:13 Orek wrote:
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.
"Shouldn't have been there in the first place." This kind of rhetoric might have had some legitimacy 200 years ago but not now. Not when there have been generations upon generations living and dying there. I don't understand why you dismiss this as something of no consequence. Either way there has been a war fought over the islands and Argentina lost. The dispute should've ended back then. What does it matter that a couple hundred people lived and died in there ? If they like Brittain so much then they can move there. These peoples existance has had one major purpose, to populate the island giving Brittain a lasting claim to it, its not like a bunch of Brittish sailors went out of their way to live there, they were commanded to populate the island, and are still serving their homeland every time they cast their vote on some stupid ballot. Its a 200 year old occupation strategy, nothing more, they might be living civilian lives, but they are nothing but occupation agents from england. So Brazil should be given back to the native tribes yes? Brazil has been independent since the 70s. It's a democracy. Native tribes are a minority. The Falkland Islands is a very different story from Brazil.
Yes, because Brazil has native tribes who were robbed of their land by the colonial powers. The Falklands natives are currently governed by their home nation and have been except for that one time thirty years ago when a foreign colonial power attempted to occupy them by force. The Brazilian natives were fucked over by the arrival of Europeans, the Falklands natives back then were penguins and had no strong political views.
|
On March 13 2013 16:36 Orek wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2013 06:22 Melliflue wrote: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. Show nested quote +
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.
200 years ago? Try 70 years ago. Invading other countries and colonizing/annexing their territory didn't go out of style till the end of World War II, and that's only because the Axis countries lost.
But even this 'out of style' period is but a transient phase. As long as the status quo of territorial ownership is not satisfactory for all people, and it is not, this practice will be resurrected sooner / later. The world's resources are, at the end of the day, limited, and all living creatures will do what they must to survive and thrive.
|
On March 14 2013 01:47 dUTtrOACh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 01:40 _SpiRaL_ wrote:On March 14 2013 01:10 D10 wrote:On March 13 2013 23:59 revoN wrote:On March 13 2013 03:13 Orek wrote:
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.
"Shouldn't have been there in the first place." This kind of rhetoric might have had some legitimacy 200 years ago but not now. Not when there have been generations upon generations living and dying there. I don't understand why you dismiss this as something of no consequence. Either way there has been a war fought over the islands and Argentina lost. The dispute should've ended back then. What does it matter that a couple hundred people lived and died in there ? If they like Brittain so much then they can move there. These peoples existance has had one major purpose, to populate the island giving Brittain a lasting claim to it, its not like a bunch of Brittish sailors went out of their way to live there, they were commanded to populate the island, and are still serving their homeland every time they cast their vote on some stupid ballot. Its a 200 year old occupation strategy, nothing more, they might be living civilian lives, but they are nothing but occupation agents from england. So Brazil should be given back to the native tribes yes? Brazil has been independent since the 70s. It's a democracy. Native tribes are a minority. The Falkland Islands is a very different story from Brazil.
Brazil has been independent from Portugal since ~1822, after the portuguese crown cowardly fled from their country because their fear of Napoleon around 1800.
Give the falklands back to the penguins!
|
I'm still a little bit bitter that we lost 255 soldiers and 3 Falkland Islanders because Argentina thought we wouldn't defend our teritory.
Not to mention the amount of needless argentine casualties.
To continue asking for the islands back is an insult.
|
On March 14 2013 01:10 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2013 23:59 revoN wrote:On March 13 2013 03:13 Orek wrote:
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.
"Shouldn't have been there in the first place." This kind of rhetoric might have had some legitimacy 200 years ago but not now. Not when there have been generations upon generations living and dying there. I don't understand why you dismiss this as something of no consequence. Either way there has been a war fought over the islands and Argentina lost. The dispute should've ended back then. What does it matter that a couple hundred people lived and died in there ? If they like Brittain so much then they can move there. These peoples existance has had one major purpose, to populate the island giving Brittain a lasting claim to it, its not like a bunch of Brittish sailors went out of their way to live there, they were commanded to populate the island, and are still serving their homeland every time they cast their vote on some stupid ballot. Its a 200 year old occupation strategy, nothing more, they might be living civilian lives, but they are nothing but occupation agents from england.
It's not a couple hundred of people, it's a couple hundred years of people living and dying there.
Do you realize how batshit insane your second sentence is? Just because they like being part of the UK, politically, doesn't mean they want to move halfway across the world to live in a place they have never seen or been to. Don't be intentionally dense.
The people who lived there 200 years ago were "occupation agents" or whatever you want to call them. Their children were just Falkland Islanders, and those are the people living there today. They may be serving their homeland when they cast their ballot to remain part of the UK, but do you think they are doing so mindlessly? Almost all of them don't want to be part of Argentina, so why force them? Because it has been discovered, since colonization, that there are oil reserves there?
How can you say they are living civilian lives but are nothing but occupation agents? That's a direct contradiction. These people aren't on direct orders from the British government to plant themselves on the islands for the next 100 years, they just live there.
Sounds to me like Britain got lucky in that one of their smaller colonies has a great potential for wealth. Nothing wrong with that, as long as the people don't mind being part of the UK. You don't see Canada trying to bully the U.S. into giving them Alaska, because it makes no sense.
|
On March 14 2013 02:02 fabiano wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 01:47 dUTtrOACh wrote:On March 14 2013 01:40 _SpiRaL_ wrote:On March 14 2013 01:10 D10 wrote:On March 13 2013 23:59 revoN wrote:On March 13 2013 03:13 Orek wrote:
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.
"Shouldn't have been there in the first place." This kind of rhetoric might have had some legitimacy 200 years ago but not now. Not when there have been generations upon generations living and dying there. I don't understand why you dismiss this as something of no consequence. Either way there has been a war fought over the islands and Argentina lost. The dispute should've ended back then. What does it matter that a couple hundred people lived and died in there ? If they like Brittain so much then they can move there. These peoples existance has had one major purpose, to populate the island giving Brittain a lasting claim to it, its not like a bunch of Brittish sailors went out of their way to live there, they were commanded to populate the island, and are still serving their homeland every time they cast their vote on some stupid ballot. Its a 200 year old occupation strategy, nothing more, they might be living civilian lives, but they are nothing but occupation agents from england. So Brazil should be given back to the native tribes yes? Brazil has been independent since the 70s. It's a democracy. Native tribes are a minority. The Falkland Islands is a very different story from Brazil. Brazil has been independent from Portugal since ~1822, after the portuguese crown cowardly fled from their country because their fear of Napoleon around 1800. Give the falklands back to the penguins!
My mistake. You are quite correct. I was thinking of Mozambique and a couple of other colonies that they gave up in the 70s after Selazar.
I wouldn't call it cowardly to run from Napoleon, though. Everybody who stood and fought Napoleon got a royal ass-kicking all the way to Russia. It makes sense. I guess there's this foolish pride that some people have where they value their life less than their reputation. I'd rather be a living "coward" than a "brave" corpse.
|
What claim does Argentina actually have to the islands? South Americans here seem to think that the islands were stolen from Argentina.
Argentina was founded in 1816. Britain claimed the islands in 1833. Between 1816 and 1833 the islands were uninhabited and Argentina made no claim to them at all. Argentinian people have never lived on the islands and Argentina has never owned the islands. The islands are hundreds of miles away from Argentina, which under international law means that Argentina has no claim based on location.
Why should the islands belong to Argentina? I see the claim to be as strong as Japan's claim to Hawaii.
|
On March 14 2013 02:24 Shottaz wrote:
I'm still a little bit bitter that we lost 255 soldiers and 3 Falkland Islanders because Argentina thought we wouldn't defend our teritory.
Not to mention the amount of needless argentine casualties.
To continue asking for the islands back is an insult.
This is a big part of why I feel strongly about this matter. 1982 is the most recent time in which a foreign nation has invaded British territory. They attacked us unexpectedly and terrorized our civilians, and now the Argentinians think that the British are the bad guys here.
|
On March 14 2013 01:10 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2013 23:59 revoN wrote:On March 13 2013 03:13 Orek wrote:
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.
"Shouldn't have been there in the first place." This kind of rhetoric might have had some legitimacy 200 years ago but not now. Not when there have been generations upon generations living and dying there. I don't understand why you dismiss this as something of no consequence. Either way there has been a war fought over the islands and Argentina lost. The dispute should've ended back then. What does it matter that a couple hundred people lived and died in there ? If they like Brittain so much then they can move there. These peoples existance has had one major purpose, to populate the island giving Brittain a lasting claim to it, its not like a bunch of Brittish sailors went out of their way to live there, they were commanded to populate the island, and are still serving their homeland every time they cast their vote on some stupid ballot. Its a 200 year old occupation strategy, nothing more, they might be living civilian lives, but they are nothing but occupation agents from england.
Every territory on the planet is today claimed on the basis of people living there for a long time. At some point original claims disappear. Funny thing is US, Brazil or Argentina are much more controversial than Falklands as those still have minorities that the land was originally taken from by force. None is asking Brazilians to leave.
|
United States42867 Posts
On March 14 2013 02:49 hzflank wrote:
What claim does Argentina actually have to the islands? South Americans here seem to think that the islands were stolen from Argentina.
Argentina was founded in 1816. Britain claimed the islands in 1833. Between 1816 and 1833 the islands were uninhabited and Argentina made no claim to them at all. Argentinian people have never lived on the islands and Argentina has never owned the islands. The islands are hundreds of miles away from Argentina, which under international law means that Argentina has no claim based on location.
Why should the islands belong to Argentina? I see the claim to be as strong as Japan's claim to Hawaii.
They feel they inherited Spain's claim to them. Spain's claim was one of many among colonial powers and in the changing winds of the 19th Century they were claimed by everyone with ships, as was the rest of the world. When the dust settled in the 20th Century and regular colonial wars, in which you'd try and steal everything claimed by everyone else everywhere, ended then places generally became the property of the people that lived there. The principle of self determination beat the system of claiming everywhere and keeping what you could hold. They're trying to be a colonial power but they're 200 years too late.
|
On March 14 2013 02:40 dUTtrOACh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 02:02 fabiano wrote:On March 14 2013 01:47 dUTtrOACh wrote:On March 14 2013 01:40 _SpiRaL_ wrote:On March 14 2013 01:10 D10 wrote:On March 13 2013 23:59 revoN wrote:On March 13 2013 03:13 Orek wrote:
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.
"Shouldn't have been there in the first place." This kind of rhetoric might have had some legitimacy 200 years ago but not now. Not when there have been generations upon generations living and dying there. I don't understand why you dismiss this as something of no consequence. Either way there has been a war fought over the islands and Argentina lost. The dispute should've ended back then. What does it matter that a couple hundred people lived and died in there ? If they like Brittain so much then they can move there. These peoples existance has had one major purpose, to populate the island giving Brittain a lasting claim to it, its not like a bunch of Brittish sailors went out of their way to live there, they were commanded to populate the island, and are still serving their homeland every time they cast their vote on some stupid ballot. Its a 200 year old occupation strategy, nothing more, they might be living civilian lives, but they are nothing but occupation agents from england. So Brazil should be given back to the native tribes yes? Brazil has been independent since the 70s. It's a democracy. Native tribes are a minority. The Falkland Islands is a very different story from Brazil. Brazil has been independent from Portugal since ~1822, after the portuguese crown cowardly fled from their country because their fear of Napoleon around 1800. Give the falklands back to the penguins! My mistake. You are quite correct. I was thinking of Mozambique and a couple of other colonies that they gave up in the 70s after Selazar. I wouldn't call it cowardly to run from Napoleon, though. Everybody who stood and fought Napoleon got a royal ass-kicking all the way to Russia. It makes sense. I guess there's this foolish pride that some people have where they value their life less than their reputation. I'd rather be a living "coward" than a "brave" corpse.
It was coward to leave their people at the mercy of Napoleon's will.
|
Just asked my Argentinian gf about it. Her response: Yeah, it's pretty stupid (the claim), but if - by whatever means - she succeeds, she will be president for life.
And right after that, she told me that Mrs. Kirchner just recently publicly stated that Diabetes is a disease of the rich, because all they do is sit around and eat.
And just last week, the Argentinian government presented a plan to nationalize all bank accounts and outlaw foreign credit cards.
|
Perhaps the UK should just return the islands to the natives: i.e. no one. Evacuate all the islanders to the UK, and nuke the place to irradiate it. Then, announce there will be periodic unannounced nuclear testing on the island to ensure non-natives do not set up shop there.
|
United States42867 Posts
On March 14 2013 03:42 HunterX11 wrote:
Perhaps the UK should just return the islands to the natives: i.e. no one. Evacuate all the islanders to the UK, and nuke the place to irradiate it. Then, announce there will be periodic unannounced nuclear testing on the island to ensure non-natives do not set up shop there.
I'm assuming you're a native American Indian, otherwise you'll probably be joining the Falklanders back in Europe.
|
On March 14 2013 02:49 hzflank wrote:
What claim does Argentina actually have to the islands? South Americans here seem to think that the islands were stolen from Argentina.
Argentina was founded in 1816. Britain claimed the islands in 1833. Between 1816 and 1833 the islands were uninhabited and Argentina made no claim to them at all. Argentinian people have never lived on the islands and Argentina has never owned the islands. The islands are hundreds of miles away from Argentina, which under international law means that Argentina has no claim based on location.
Why should the islands belong to Argentina? I see the claim to be as strong as Japan's claim to Hawaii.
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/Falklands.permanence.png)
De facto control over the Falkland Islands
from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute
Part of Argentina's claim is that Argentina acquired no man's land at the time. Then, British appeared, requesting Argentina to back off despite the fact that British had left the isalnds several decades prior. While no official decleration of war was made, Argentina was heavily outmanned and outgunned, so they had to leave. Argentina considers this an act of force and illegal acquisition of their lands. There are other points listed in the link.
Argentina's claim isn't groundless unlike how some people think. The more I learn, the more I feel that today's media focuses too much on UK's claim. I still think UK's claim looks relatively better, but it is unfortunate that Argentina's side of story isn't as widely known by people, including myself a few days ago.
edit:typo
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
