|
Kwark, I feel you summed up my feelings better than I could over the course of the first few pages, I tip my hat.
People on the outside may see it as a dispute over oil but it just isn't true. Oil was not the reason we defended and continue to defend the islands. Protecting territory so far away from the army/navy is a very expensive thing to do, it is the reason our colonial friends from over the pond fell out with us. The Empire has acted poorly, shall we say, at various times but the Falklands is not one of those examples.
Now even if Argentina had a legitimate reason to dispute the occupation of British descendants, and they don't, I advise you to look at a world map of 1833. Times change. If you did start to return territories from history (and to be clear there is no nation who has a claim on the Falklands) then where would you stop?
|
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.
1) It's not a relic of the British empire if the people living there consider themselves British.
2) The Falkland Islands are hundreds of miles away from Argentina. Your belief that somehow the closest proximate country should have possession over an island, disregarding all other factors, is asinine. Regardless of whether or not Britain's initial colonization of the islands was right or wrong, that was 200 years ago. You don't erase 200 years of cultural history because all of a sudden you've decided the island is closer to Argentina than the UK, so it should change hands. That logic is ridiculous and just invites a military response from the other side.
3) Your analogy is terrible. The USA declared independence from Great Britain, and won that independence in a rather bloody war 250 years ago. The Falkland Islands wish to remain dependent on the UK, and the UK is happy to have them. Why does Argentina need to get involved at all?
4) You may not see a problem with the islands being independent, but the people actually living on these islands do. I would think their opinions are a bit more relevant than yours or mine. There's no reason to force them to be an independent entity just because Argentina wants to fight over whether or not the islands were stolen from them.
|
On March 14 2013 04:14 Aristodemus wrote:
Kwark, I feel you summed up my feelings better than I could over the course of the first few pages, I tip my hat.
People on the outside may see it as a dispute over oil but it just isn't true. Oil was not the reason we defended and continue to defend the islands. Protecting territory so far away from the army/navy is a very expensive thing to do, it is the reason our colonial friends from over the pond fell out with us. The Empire has acted poorly, shall we say, at various times but the Falklands is not one of those examples.
Now even if Argentina had a legitimate reason to dispute the occupation of British descendants, and they don't, I advise you to look at a world map of 1833. Times change. If you did start to return territories from history (and to be clear there is no nation who has a claim on the Falklands) then where would you stop?
You stop nowhere! Cram everyone from North America, South America, and Australia back into Europe and leave those continents for the native tribes! Europe is big enough to handle the load!
|
Northern Ireland26730 Posts
It's a shame I'm from the UK because it's being implied that it is influencing my views on this.
National, fucking, SELF determination. It's rather simple, instead of allowing this nonsense to continue, call Kirchner out on her blatant distraction tactics.
Incidentally, if the time comes where a majority in NI wish to join the Republic, I'd be fine with that. Allow people to decide their own affiliations, as long as minorities are respected.
|
On March 14 2013 06:18 Wombat_NI wrote:
It's a shame I'm from the UK because it's being implied that it is influencing my views on this.
National, fucking, SELF determination. It's rather simple, instead of allowing this nonsense to continue, call Kirchner out on her blatant distraction tactics.
Incidentally, if the time comes where a majority in NI wish to join the Republic, I'd be fine with that. Allow people to decide their own affiliations, as long as minorities are respected.
The problem is that people are questioning the self-determination itself because they feel the people living there are some sort of British agents planted there to subvert their rightful Argentinian overlords. If you question the validity of the self-determination, all other logic goes out the window, and that's what they are riding on.
But no, once you realize that the people actually living on these islands want to be part of the UK, there is no good argument for why Argentina should suddenly take control. None whatsoever.
|
The British were living on the Falklands a good 70 years or so before any Argentine ever set foot on them, I don't even understand how it's still up for debate.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/qmtFThi.png)
It's also worth noting that the islands were discovered by an Englishman in 1690 and Argentina's "colony" there in the early 1830's was lead by a German guy and a British guy and the team consisted of quite a few British mercenaries too...
|
On March 14 2013 03:59 Orek wrote:Show nested quote +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_disputePart 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
As Quark wrote self-determination trumps 200 year old political landgrabs.
|
Oh yeah? then self determination existed when you colonized and subjugated an entire continent!
Self determination existed when your presidents deemed necessary to intervine domestic politics (yeah, tell me all the dictatorships of the 70's just came out of nowhere)
Democracy existed when you thought it was fair to impose sanctions on other countries in continents that are thounsands of miles away from home. YAY DEMOCRACY!
OUR DEMOCRACY IS FAIR AND THEREFORE WE ARE ALLOWED TO MESS WITH THE POLITICS OF THE RESTO OF THE WORLD, but if said countries do something that we may not like THEN THEY ARE AGAINST DEMOCRACY.
Please if you want to keep FALKLANDS or reclaim MALVINAS then stop pretending you have moreal high ground... because you don't. You hypocritical bastards clinge to things you dismissed when the very people you were conquering tried to use it on their defense... spare me that bullshit
User was warned for this post
|
YEAH NOW THAT WE FUCKED UP THE ATMOSPHERE LET'S MAKE RULES FOR THE RESTO OF THE WORLD AND HOPE EVERYONE IT'S OK WITH IT because if they are not then OMG THEY JUST DON'T CARE ABOUT THE PLANET
In the mean time let's spare companies that fuck up or own soil and people because THEY ARE TOO BIG TO FALL
"BUT WE DIDN'T KNOW"
|
I think somebody is going to have a nasty hangover tomorrow morning o.O
|
On April 13 2013 18:08 Powerpill wrote:
I think somebody is going to have a nasty hangover tomorrow morning o.O
Among other things 
|
Fenrax
United States5018 Posts
On April 13 2013 17:58 Painmaker wrote:
Oh yeah? then self determination existed when you colonized and subjugated an entire continent!
Self determination existed when your presidents deemed necessary to intervine domestic politics (yeah, tell me all the dictatorships of the 70's just came out of nowhere)
Democracy existed when you thought it was fair to impose sanctions on other countries in continents that are thounsands of miles away from home. YAY DEMOCRACY!
OUR DEMOCRACY IS FAIR AND THEREFORE WE ARE ALLOWED TO MESS WITH THE POLITICS OF THE RESTO OF THE WORLD, but if said countries do something that we may not like THEN THEY ARE AGAINST DEMOCRACY.
Please if you want to keep FALKLANDS or reclaim MALVINAS then stop pretending you have moreal high ground... because you don't. You hypocritical bastards clinge to things you dismissed when the very people you were conquering tried to use it on their defense... spare me that bullshit
Britains settled on an empty Island and stayed there since then, that is all that happened.
None of the crimes that the USA (if that is what you hint at) might have commited in South America is related to the Falklands in any way. Your rage is understandable but utterly misguided.
|
Painmaker, let's not start slinging mud in what's been a relatively civil discussion?
Hyperbole and caps lock really don't help make your point. You might want to step back, take a breath and wonder if you're a bit too personally invested.
The undeniable fact that the U.K., like many countries, has had a blatant disregard for the process of self-determination whenever it suits them doesn't mean their defense of self-determination is invalid. It makes it ironic, not wrong.
|
On April 13 2013 18:17 Fenrax wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2013 17:58 Painmaker wrote:
Oh yeah? then self determination existed when you colonized and subjugated an entire continent!
Self determination existed when your presidents deemed necessary to intervine domestic politics (yeah, tell me all the dictatorships of the 70's just came out of nowhere)
Democracy existed when you thought it was fair to impose sanctions on other countries in continents that are thounsands of miles away from home. YAY DEMOCRACY!
OUR DEMOCRACY IS FAIR AND THEREFORE WE ARE ALLOWED TO MESS WITH THE POLITICS OF THE RESTO OF THE WORLD, but if said countries do something that we may not like THEN THEY ARE AGAINST DEMOCRACY.
Please if you want to keep FALKLANDS or reclaim MALVINAS then stop pretending you have moreal high ground... because you don't. You hypocritical bastards clinge to things you dismissed when the very people you were conquering tried to use it on their defense... spare me that bullshit
Britains settled on an empty Island and stayed there since then, that is all that happened. None of the crimes that the USA (if that is what you hint at) might have commited in South America is related to the Falklands in any way. Your rage is understandable but utterly misguided.
Incas were settled in Peru. Mayans and Aztecs in Central America and Mexico.
Self determinsm worked just fine there right?
|
On April 13 2013 18:20 HauntYou wrote:
Painmaker, let's not start slinging mud in what's been a relatively civil discussion?
Hyperbole and caps lock really don't help make your point. You might want to step back, take a breath and wonder if you're a bit too personally invested.
The undeniable fact that the U.K., like many countries, has had a blatant disregard for the process of self-determination whenever it suits them doesn't mean their defense of self-determination is invalid. It makes it ironic, not wrong.
It's wrong in the sense that since you are the ones claiming it... then makes it right... when history has shown that we just fuck over it.
Irony: meaning dissimulation or feigned ignorance
|
On April 13 2013 18:17 Fenrax wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2013 17:58 Painmaker wrote:
Oh yeah? then self determination existed when you colonized and subjugated an entire continent!
Self determination existed when your presidents deemed necessary to intervine domestic politics (yeah, tell me all the dictatorships of the 70's just came out of nowhere)
Democracy existed when you thought it was fair to impose sanctions on other countries in continents that are thounsands of miles away from home. YAY DEMOCRACY!
OUR DEMOCRACY IS FAIR AND THEREFORE WE ARE ALLOWED TO MESS WITH THE POLITICS OF THE RESTO OF THE WORLD, but if said countries do something that we may not like THEN THEY ARE AGAINST DEMOCRACY.
Please if you want to keep FALKLANDS or reclaim MALVINAS then stop pretending you have moreal high ground... because you don't. You hypocritical bastards clinge to things you dismissed when the very people you were conquering tried to use it on their defense... spare me that bullshit
Britains settled on an empty Island and stayed there since then, that is all that happened. None of the crimes that the USA (if that is what you hint at) might have commited in South America is related to the Falklands in any way. Your rage is understandable but utterly misguided.
You could go on... there were no chinese before china was a thing...
|
Fenrax
United States5018 Posts
On April 13 2013 18:21 Painmaker wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2013 18:17 Fenrax wrote:On April 13 2013 17:58 Painmaker wrote:
Oh yeah? then self determination existed when you colonized and subjugated an entire continent!
Self determination existed when your presidents deemed necessary to intervine domestic politics (yeah, tell me all the dictatorships of the 70's just came out of nowhere)
Democracy existed when you thought it was fair to impose sanctions on other countries in continents that are thounsands of miles away from home. YAY DEMOCRACY!
OUR DEMOCRACY IS FAIR AND THEREFORE WE ARE ALLOWED TO MESS WITH THE POLITICS OF THE RESTO OF THE WORLD, but if said countries do something that we may not like THEN THEY ARE AGAINST DEMOCRACY.
Please if you want to keep FALKLANDS or reclaim MALVINAS then stop pretending you have moreal high ground... because you don't. You hypocritical bastards clinge to things you dismissed when the very people you were conquering tried to use it on their defense... spare me that bullshit
Britains settled on an empty Island and stayed there since then, that is all that happened. None of the crimes that the USA (if that is what you hint at) might have commited in South America is related to the Falklands in any way. Your rage is understandable but utterly misguided. Incas were settled in Peru. Mayans and Aztecs in Central America and Mexico. Self determinsm worked just fine there right?
So you think that America should be given back to the Indians?
Let's assume for a second that this is a sane argument. Then who should the Falkland Islands be given back to? Should the Britains just commit suicide to give the Falklands back to the rocks that lived there before them?
|
|
|
Then again the only reason your argument works is because there isn't enough indian power to fight over the land... if that were the case, you wouldn't be replying to this thread
|
Puru? Aztecs? Both conquered by Spain... Pizaro, and Cortez
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
