|
On April 13 2013 21:20 Keldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2013 21:09 turdburgler wrote:On April 13 2013 21:02 Keldrath wrote:
I mean, if we go back it's basically argentine land, that the british came, evicted the argentine settlers from, allegedly by argentina anyways i have no idea if they actually had sent settlers there prior to the english occupation or not. threatened them with greater force and barred argentines from resettling.
so i assume you will be giving the continental united states back to the indian tribes any day now. that gets a little complicated, especially considering they didn't make claims to the land as they didn't believe land should or could be "owned"
so ownership of land is based on belief not on heritage? im only being so fickle because i believe all these arguments about ownership stem from a systemically wrong viewpoint. if you want to play the historical ownership point of view then every country in the world has problems with 'ownership' as pretty much all of them have had invaders or immigrants from 1 time to another. it is simply arbitrary to conclude that argentinas claim is close enough in time but the saxons (or celts) of englands isnt, or the greeks of cyprus etc etc etc.
so we have to draw a line. and that line seems to clearly be the end of the second world war. that was the end of empire, and foreign control of nations being acceptable. so we look at the world map, and apart from really obvious cases of fuck ups like the maps drawn up by the colonial powers in africa/asia minor, we try and stick to that status quo. and in that situation the falklands are british.
any historical argument grounded before 1945 doesnt make any sense as countries were pretty much free to invade whoever they wanted based on a 'might is right' doctrine.
|
France establishes a base on the Falklands
England establishes a base on the Falklands
France leaves to appease Spain
Spain attacks the English port forcing the English to leave, England and Spain almost go to war
England retakes the port
England leaves the islands due to vulnerability in international conflicts, still keeping their claim to them.
Spain destroys the English settlement on the island.
Spain leaves due to international commitments, also keeping their claim (made after the British claim).
Argentina makes claims to the islands.
England reinhabits the islands, forcing the Argentinian administration to leave.
The Falklands becomes permanently colonised by the English.
Argentina (like Spain before them) doesn't have a leg to stand on, their only argument is that the Falklands are close. And besides, 'international law' in the newly colonised Americas was so ill defined that self determination of the inhabitants is the only argument that holds any weight. That's been the basis of decolonisation for the last 50 years.
|
On April 13 2013 22:22 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2013 21:20 Keldrath wrote:On April 13 2013 21:09 turdburgler wrote:On April 13 2013 21:02 Keldrath wrote:
I mean, if we go back it's basically argentine land, that the british came, evicted the argentine settlers from, allegedly by argentina anyways i have no idea if they actually had sent settlers there prior to the english occupation or not. threatened them with greater force and barred argentines from resettling.
so i assume you will be giving the continental united states back to the indian tribes any day now. that gets a little complicated, especially considering they didn't make claims to the land as they didn't believe land should or could be "owned" so ownership of land is based on belief not on heritage? im only being so fickle because i believe all these arguments about ownership stem from a systemically wrong viewpoint. if you want to play the historical ownership point of view then every country in the world has problems with 'ownership' as pretty much all of them have had invaders or immigrants from 1 time to another. it is simply arbitrary to conclude that argentinas claim is close enough in time but the saxons (or celts) of englands isnt, or the greeks of cyprus etc etc etc. so we have to draw a line. and that line seems to clearly be the end of the second world war. that was the end of empire, and foreign control of nations being acceptable. so we look at the world map, and apart from really obvious cases of fuck ups like the maps drawn up by the colonial powers in africa/asia minor, we try and stick to that status quo. and in that situation the falklands are british. any historical argument grounded before 1945 doesnt make any sense as countries were pretty much free to invade whoever they wanted based on a 'might is right' doctrine.
I did say it was a very complicated issue, because of reasons like this. and that both sides had their arguments, both very reasonable ones, so it's hard to say which side is "right". but that the self determination stance of the british that they remain british because they choose to hurts real people the least.
you've got to be able to see it from both points of view, i think when you do you realize that argentina isn't exactly baseless in their claims.
|
On April 13 2013 22:34 Keldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2013 22:22 turdburgler wrote:On April 13 2013 21:20 Keldrath wrote:On April 13 2013 21:09 turdburgler wrote:On April 13 2013 21:02 Keldrath wrote:
I mean, if we go back it's basically argentine land, that the british came, evicted the argentine settlers from, allegedly by argentina anyways i have no idea if they actually had sent settlers there prior to the english occupation or not. threatened them with greater force and barred argentines from resettling.
so i assume you will be giving the continental united states back to the indian tribes any day now. that gets a little complicated, especially considering they didn't make claims to the land as they didn't believe land should or could be "owned" so ownership of land is based on belief not on heritage? im only being so fickle because i believe all these arguments about ownership stem from a systemically wrong viewpoint. if you want to play the historical ownership point of view then every country in the world has problems with 'ownership' as pretty much all of them have had invaders or immigrants from 1 time to another. it is simply arbitrary to conclude that argentinas claim is close enough in time but the saxons (or celts) of englands isnt, or the greeks of cyprus etc etc etc. so we have to draw a line. and that line seems to clearly be the end of the second world war. that was the end of empire, and foreign control of nations being acceptable. so we look at the world map, and apart from really obvious cases of fuck ups like the maps drawn up by the colonial powers in africa/asia minor, we try and stick to that status quo. and in that situation the falklands are british. any historical argument grounded before 1945 doesnt make any sense as countries were pretty much free to invade whoever they wanted based on a 'might is right' doctrine. I did say it was a very complicated issue, because of reasons like this. and that both sides had their arguments, both very reasonable ones, so it's hard to say which side is "right". but that the self determination stance of the british that they remain british because they choose to hurts real people the least. you've got to be able to see it from both points of view, i think when you do you realize that argentina isn't exactly baseless in their claims.
How would you sum up the Argentinian arguments? They inhabited the islands for about 10 years and were fully aware of conflicting claims made before their own. So the basis of their argument is... it's close to us, so we own it?
|
On April 13 2013 22:45 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2013 22:34 Keldrath wrote:On April 13 2013 22:22 turdburgler wrote:On April 13 2013 21:20 Keldrath wrote:On April 13 2013 21:09 turdburgler wrote:On April 13 2013 21:02 Keldrath wrote:
I mean, if we go back it's basically argentine land, that the british came, evicted the argentine settlers from, allegedly by argentina anyways i have no idea if they actually had sent settlers there prior to the english occupation or not. threatened them with greater force and barred argentines from resettling.
so i assume you will be giving the continental united states back to the indian tribes any day now. that gets a little complicated, especially considering they didn't make claims to the land as they didn't believe land should or could be "owned" so ownership of land is based on belief not on heritage? im only being so fickle because i believe all these arguments about ownership stem from a systemically wrong viewpoint. if you want to play the historical ownership point of view then every country in the world has problems with 'ownership' as pretty much all of them have had invaders or immigrants from 1 time to another. it is simply arbitrary to conclude that argentinas claim is close enough in time but the saxons (or celts) of englands isnt, or the greeks of cyprus etc etc etc. so we have to draw a line. and that line seems to clearly be the end of the second world war. that was the end of empire, and foreign control of nations being acceptable. so we look at the world map, and apart from really obvious cases of fuck ups like the maps drawn up by the colonial powers in africa/asia minor, we try and stick to that status quo. and in that situation the falklands are british. any historical argument grounded before 1945 doesnt make any sense as countries were pretty much free to invade whoever they wanted based on a 'might is right' doctrine. I did say it was a very complicated issue, because of reasons like this. and that both sides had their arguments, both very reasonable ones, so it's hard to say which side is "right". but that the self determination stance of the british that they remain british because they choose to hurts real people the least. you've got to be able to see it from both points of view, i think when you do you realize that argentina isn't exactly baseless in their claims. How would you sum up the Argentinian arguments? They inhabited the islands for about 10 years and were fully aware of conflicting claims made before their own. So the basis of their argument is... it's close to us, so we own it?
it was given to them by spain as part of their independence. essentially it was a part of their country ever since they became a country, and then they were forcibly evicted by the british, who threatened them and did not allow them to reinhabit it, which let the british to illegally occupy part of their country. now there's just the descendants of the british left there who surprise surprise want it to stay british and claim it as their own.
to them it is a part of their country, from their founding, that's since been illegally occupied by the british, who have no legitimate claim to it and have no intention of leaving.
|
On March 12 2013 14:28 KwarK wrote:
Basically no Argentinians have ever lived on the island. They have literally no claim beyond "Spain used to claim them and we're kinda like Spain, do you guys even speak Spanish?" and "look at a map, we're kinda close".
best comment so far
On April 13 2013 22:57 Keldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2013 22:45 bardtown wrote:On April 13 2013 22:34 Keldrath wrote:On April 13 2013 22:22 turdburgler wrote:On April 13 2013 21:20 Keldrath wrote:On April 13 2013 21:09 turdburgler wrote:On April 13 2013 21:02 Keldrath wrote:
I mean, if we go back it's basically argentine land, that the british came, evicted the argentine settlers from, allegedly by argentina anyways i have no idea if they actually had sent settlers there prior to the english occupation or not. threatened them with greater force and barred argentines from resettling.
so i assume you will be giving the continental united states back to the indian tribes any day now. that gets a little complicated, especially considering they didn't make claims to the land as they didn't believe land should or could be "owned" so ownership of land is based on belief not on heritage? im only being so fickle because i believe all these arguments about ownership stem from a systemically wrong viewpoint. if you want to play the historical ownership point of view then every country in the world has problems with 'ownership' as pretty much all of them have had invaders or immigrants from 1 time to another. it is simply arbitrary to conclude that argentinas claim is close enough in time but the saxons (or celts) of englands isnt, or the greeks of cyprus etc etc etc. so we have to draw a line. and that line seems to clearly be the end of the second world war. that was the end of empire, and foreign control of nations being acceptable. so we look at the world map, and apart from really obvious cases of fuck ups like the maps drawn up by the colonial powers in africa/asia minor, we try and stick to that status quo. and in that situation the falklands are british. any historical argument grounded before 1945 doesnt make any sense as countries were pretty much free to invade whoever they wanted based on a 'might is right' doctrine. I did say it was a very complicated issue, because of reasons like this. and that both sides had their arguments, both very reasonable ones, so it's hard to say which side is "right". but that the self determination stance of the british that they remain british because they choose to hurts real people the least. you've got to be able to see it from both points of view, i think when you do you realize that argentina isn't exactly baseless in their claims. How would you sum up the Argentinian arguments? They inhabited the islands for about 10 years and were fully aware of conflicting claims made before their own. So the basis of their argument is... it's close to us, so we own it? it was given to them by spain as part of their independence. essentially it was a part of their country ever since they became a country, and then they were forcibly evicted by the british, who threatened them and did not allow them to reinhabit it, which let the british to illegally occupy part of their country. now there's just the descendants of the british left there who surprise surprise want it to stay british and claim it as their own. to them it is a part of their country, from their founding, that's since been illegally occupied by the british, who have no legitimate claim to it and have no intention of leaving.
pretty much teh same as USA made 95% of their territory
|
Although moving your people somewhere only to claim the territory on the basis of them living there is pretty unjustifiable, it can't be undone now and it's probably better if the islands remain part of England.
Measures should be taken not to let it happen again, as it only creates more tension and conflicts (Israel/Palestine).
|
On April 13 2013 23:02 CoR wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 14:28 KwarK wrote:
Basically no Argentinians have ever lived on the island. They have literally no claim beyond "Spain used to claim them and we're kinda like Spain, do you guys even speak Spanish?" and "look at a map, we're kinda close". best comment so far Show nested quote +On April 13 2013 22:57 Keldrath wrote:On April 13 2013 22:45 bardtown wrote:On April 13 2013 22:34 Keldrath wrote:On April 13 2013 22:22 turdburgler wrote:On April 13 2013 21:20 Keldrath wrote:On April 13 2013 21:09 turdburgler wrote:On April 13 2013 21:02 Keldrath wrote:
I mean, if we go back it's basically argentine land, that the british came, evicted the argentine settlers from, allegedly by argentina anyways i have no idea if they actually had sent settlers there prior to the english occupation or not. threatened them with greater force and barred argentines from resettling.
so i assume you will be giving the continental united states back to the indian tribes any day now. that gets a little complicated, especially considering they didn't make claims to the land as they didn't believe land should or could be "owned" so ownership of land is based on belief not on heritage? im only being so fickle because i believe all these arguments about ownership stem from a systemically wrong viewpoint. if you want to play the historical ownership point of view then every country in the world has problems with 'ownership' as pretty much all of them have had invaders or immigrants from 1 time to another. it is simply arbitrary to conclude that argentinas claim is close enough in time but the saxons (or celts) of englands isnt, or the greeks of cyprus etc etc etc. so we have to draw a line. and that line seems to clearly be the end of the second world war. that was the end of empire, and foreign control of nations being acceptable. so we look at the world map, and apart from really obvious cases of fuck ups like the maps drawn up by the colonial powers in africa/asia minor, we try and stick to that status quo. and in that situation the falklands are british. any historical argument grounded before 1945 doesnt make any sense as countries were pretty much free to invade whoever they wanted based on a 'might is right' doctrine. I did say it was a very complicated issue, because of reasons like this. and that both sides had their arguments, both very reasonable ones, so it's hard to say which side is "right". but that the self determination stance of the british that they remain british because they choose to hurts real people the least. you've got to be able to see it from both points of view, i think when you do you realize that argentina isn't exactly baseless in their claims. How would you sum up the Argentinian arguments? They inhabited the islands for about 10 years and were fully aware of conflicting claims made before their own. So the basis of their argument is... it's close to us, so we own it? it was given to them by spain as part of their independence. essentially it was a part of their country ever since they became a country, and then they were forcibly evicted by the british, who threatened them and did not allow them to reinhabit it, which let the british to illegally occupy part of their country. now there's just the descendants of the british left there who surprise surprise want it to stay british and claim it as their own. to them it is a part of their country, from their founding, that's since been illegally occupied by the british, who have no legitimate claim to it and have no intention of leaving. pretty much teh same as USA made 95% of their territory
im not going to defend the genocide of the native americans and the robbing of their land if that's what you want.
|
On April 13 2013 22:57 Keldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2013 22:45 bardtown wrote:On April 13 2013 22:34 Keldrath wrote:On April 13 2013 22:22 turdburgler wrote:On April 13 2013 21:20 Keldrath wrote:On April 13 2013 21:09 turdburgler wrote:On April 13 2013 21:02 Keldrath wrote:
I mean, if we go back it's basically argentine land, that the british came, evicted the argentine settlers from, allegedly by argentina anyways i have no idea if they actually had sent settlers there prior to the english occupation or not. threatened them with greater force and barred argentines from resettling.
so i assume you will be giving the continental united states back to the indian tribes any day now. that gets a little complicated, especially considering they didn't make claims to the land as they didn't believe land should or could be "owned" so ownership of land is based on belief not on heritage? im only being so fickle because i believe all these arguments about ownership stem from a systemically wrong viewpoint. if you want to play the historical ownership point of view then every country in the world has problems with 'ownership' as pretty much all of them have had invaders or immigrants from 1 time to another. it is simply arbitrary to conclude that argentinas claim is close enough in time but the saxons (or celts) of englands isnt, or the greeks of cyprus etc etc etc. so we have to draw a line. and that line seems to clearly be the end of the second world war. that was the end of empire, and foreign control of nations being acceptable. so we look at the world map, and apart from really obvious cases of fuck ups like the maps drawn up by the colonial powers in africa/asia minor, we try and stick to that status quo. and in that situation the falklands are british. any historical argument grounded before 1945 doesnt make any sense as countries were pretty much free to invade whoever they wanted based on a 'might is right' doctrine. I did say it was a very complicated issue, because of reasons like this. and that both sides had their arguments, both very reasonable ones, so it's hard to say which side is "right". but that the self determination stance of the british that they remain british because they choose to hurts real people the least. you've got to be able to see it from both points of view, i think when you do you realize that argentina isn't exactly baseless in their claims. How would you sum up the Argentinian arguments? They inhabited the islands for about 10 years and were fully aware of conflicting claims made before their own. So the basis of their argument is... it's close to us, so we own it? it was given to them by spain as part of their independence. essentially it was a part of their country ever since they became a country, and then they were forcibly evicted by the british, who threatened them and did not allow them to reinhabit it, which let the british to illegally occupy part of their country. now there's just the descendants of the british left there who surprise surprise want it to stay british and claim it as their own. to them it is a part of their country, from their founding, that's since been illegally occupied by the british, who have no legitimate claim to it and have no intention of leaving.
If the Spanish claim to the islands was without merit then they had no basis on which to give them to Argentina in the first place. I could promise you the Tower of London in my will but it wouldn't be easy for you to collect.
|
On April 13 2013 21:13 MoltkeWarding wrote:
The overarching point remains: when I read of the history of the Spanish in Mexico and Peru, what impressed me was not how, stranded on a continent where the dominant political language was human sacrifice, cannibalism and massacre, the Spaniards failed to live up to the example of Mother Theresa. What impressed me was how much of their own values and religious conviction they maintained under such circumstances, rather than allow the nature of the continent to assimilate them to its sanguinary ways. The Lord of the Flies thesis of humanity is best refuted by their example, and I decry the awful assumption, that their values, if not in exactly accord with our own, have to suffer five centuries of progress before they stood up to the altruism of our keyboard warriors.
I wasn't suggesting that people in times gone by haven't shown some, equal or even more strength of character than what we see nowadays, I was pointing out that rampant invasion and slavery is far less common than it used to be, and I think you know that  ...
On April 13 2013 19:41 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2013 18:21 Painmaker wrote: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? self determination is a sociological concept only really developed in the last 100 years. by your logic since we once kept slaves we should always keep slaves, or since world powers strived to have empires we should just invade each other all the time.
your logic seems to forget about that thing called time.
... says it best.
|
On April 13 2013 22:09 Sanctimonius wrote:
An interesting way of looking at it, Moltke. Personally I'm not one to identify with people who took such liberties with conquered populations, what with the forced conversions, treaty-breaking and executions. Both sides had pretty unpleasant people, and every now and again one or two people shine down through history because of the examples they set in trying to maintain basic human dignity in unique times of conquest and plunder. I would also point out that human sacrifice was a staple of the Aztec religion, but not necessary of South America. It was known in other religions but it seemed pretty rare for other peoples to resort to such drastic sacrifices.
Cortes isn't an example to hold up, for me. He set off in search of wealth, and because he had burned his bridges back home. It was succeed or die - I guess his bravery and perseverance cannot be questioned. But he didn't care about the natives, not one jot. He came to exploit the local politics to his advantage, set off a chain of events that caused the deaths of many natives and caused the collapse of more than one complex societies. Pizarro had a similar affect on the Incas, cheerfully ignoring promises and treaties agreed when it suited him, ransoming and using Atahualpa until he was no longer useful, then killing him and marching on the capital. Not exactly the actions of a decent man.
I agree they were products of their times, and can hardly be faulted for that. Both were money grubbing adventure-whores seeking to further their own legends at the cost of human lives, and both effectively lucked out in being able to exploit situations that paved the way for their conquests with such tiny forces. They had incredible lives, and entertaining exploits, I won't deny it, but I failed to see much in their actions that inspired me, personally.
The Inca also used human sacrifice, although their religious customs were not as centred on warring as the Aztecs. The most notorious institution of theirs was the sacrifice of children, who were held in honour and fattened in preparation for the occasion.
When Pizarro's army drew up to the Inca camp next to Caxamalaca, they had descended a long trek through the Andes. Having reached the valley, they were in a strange country with the mountains at their backs. In front of them was the Inca Emperor, with 80 000 men. To confront the army in direct battle would not have obtained victory; as unless the Spaniards captured the Inca Emperor, the war would continue until the Spaniards were defeated by attrition. In the circumstances, subterfuge seemed to offer the only opportunity for survival, if the Inca's intentions were hostile.
The question remains: what would have happened if the Spaniards had simply submitted to trust the Inca. Atahualpa did not expect such deceit from the Spaniards, else he would not have entered the Spanish quarters relatively unprotected. This is frequently cited as evidence of his good faith. At the same time, such trust could probably be understood by placing them within the cultural norms of the Incas. The Spaniards, being surrounded by the Inca army, was probably thought in no condition to offer injury to the Inca, and especially not the capital offense of daring to assault the person of the Monarch. The principle of 'decapitation strikes' against the enemy was unknown in Inca warfare, and especially not through the violation of embassy or rules of hospitality.
In sum, Pizarro's men behaved badly in abducting Atahualpa and slaughtering his retainers. In doing so they violated the ethical norms of both cultures. But it's quite possible that in doing so, they saved their own lives. In retrospect, personal conduct displayed in both the abduction of Montezuma and Atahualpa are condemnable, and sets a blot upon the record of both accounts. But the question remains: how are we different? How would we have behaved in such circumstances as were faced by Pizarro's men? Once you accept that most men, in all ages, are neither angels nor beasts, you can more peacefully dispense with the self-satisfaction of role-playing Good by stamping upon the Evil memories of your ancestors.
Why am I talking about Mexico and Peru? Well, because Argentina was almost empty in the 16th century. If you want my take on it, the division among common people can be boiled down to whether they like or dislike England. Many of the positions we take in politics we take by derivative, and almost always when the issue at stake is an insignificant one. People generally take their 'stands' on issues which can be traced back to three or four fundamental ideas about the world. And one of the most fundamental ideas of the modern world is the Idea of England.
|
It's always struck me that the historical arguments, while interesting, aren't necessary for establishing a British claim to the islands. Even if we imagine for the sake of argument that the islands were Argentinian and the occupation was illegal. If the Islas Malvinas voted almost unanimously in a referendum to leave Argentina, join the UK and rename themselves The Falkland Islands what argument would there possibly be for preventing them from having their way?
|
On April 13 2013 22:57 Keldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2013 22:45 bardtown wrote:On April 13 2013 22:34 Keldrath wrote:On April 13 2013 22:22 turdburgler wrote:On April 13 2013 21:20 Keldrath wrote:On April 13 2013 21:09 turdburgler wrote:On April 13 2013 21:02 Keldrath wrote:
I mean, if we go back it's basically argentine land, that the british came, evicted the argentine settlers from, allegedly by argentina anyways i have no idea if they actually had sent settlers there prior to the english occupation or not. threatened them with greater force and barred argentines from resettling.
so i assume you will be giving the continental united states back to the indian tribes any day now. that gets a little complicated, especially considering they didn't make claims to the land as they didn't believe land should or could be "owned" so ownership of land is based on belief not on heritage? im only being so fickle because i believe all these arguments about ownership stem from a systemically wrong viewpoint. if you want to play the historical ownership point of view then every country in the world has problems with 'ownership' as pretty much all of them have had invaders or immigrants from 1 time to another. it is simply arbitrary to conclude that argentinas claim is close enough in time but the saxons (or celts) of englands isnt, or the greeks of cyprus etc etc etc. so we have to draw a line. and that line seems to clearly be the end of the second world war. that was the end of empire, and foreign control of nations being acceptable. so we look at the world map, and apart from really obvious cases of fuck ups like the maps drawn up by the colonial powers in africa/asia minor, we try and stick to that status quo. and in that situation the falklands are british. any historical argument grounded before 1945 doesnt make any sense as countries were pretty much free to invade whoever they wanted based on a 'might is right' doctrine. I did say it was a very complicated issue, because of reasons like this. and that both sides had their arguments, both very reasonable ones, so it's hard to say which side is "right". but that the self determination stance of the british that they remain british because they choose to hurts real people the least. you've got to be able to see it from both points of view, i think when you do you realize that argentina isn't exactly baseless in their claims. How would you sum up the Argentinian arguments? They inhabited the islands for about 10 years and were fully aware of conflicting claims made before their own. So the basis of their argument is... it's close to us, so we own it? it was given to them by spain as part of their independence. essentially it was a part of their country ever since they became a country, and then they were forcibly evicted by the british, who threatened them and did not allow them to reinhabit it, which let the british to illegally occupy part of their country. now there's just the descendants of the british left there who surprise surprise want it to stay british and claim it as their own. to them it is a part of their country, from their founding, that's since been illegally occupied by the british, who have no legitimate claim to it and have no intention of leaving.
it was given to them by spain as part of their independence. essentially it was a part of their country ever since they became a country, and then they were forcibly evicted by the british, who threatened them and did not allow them to reinhabit it, which let the british to illegally occupy part of their country. now there's just the descendants of the british left there who surprise surprise want it to stay british and claim it as their own
Lol realy? i didnt knew this at all.
Then the argentinian claim on the islands is extremely strong imo and england has no leg to stand on at all.
"If the Islas Malvinas voted almost unanimously in a referendum to leave Argentina, join the UK and rename themselves The Falkland Islands what argument would there possibly be for preventing them from having their way?"
The argument that citizens are not allowed to decide to wich state they want to belong (for manny good reasons),its not their decission to make.
|
United States43960 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?
No, the native populations were genocided by the ancestors of the current Argentinians. What people forget is that Argentina is no less of a colonial imperial state than the United States, their relative poverty and childlike nation does not change that. The dispute over the Falklands is no more than one colonial nation trying to bully another out of the land owned and lived on for generations and if you think the villain of the story is Britain then you need your head examined. The current Argentine government is showing the same respect for the self determination of the native Falklanders as their ancestors showed to the native people of South America. Same shit, same colonial power, it's just 200 years later people stand up for the rights of the bullied indigenous people.
|
On April 14 2013 01:22 Rassy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2013 22:57 Keldrath wrote:On April 13 2013 22:45 bardtown wrote:On April 13 2013 22:34 Keldrath wrote:On April 13 2013 22:22 turdburgler wrote:On April 13 2013 21:20 Keldrath wrote:On April 13 2013 21:09 turdburgler wrote:On April 13 2013 21:02 Keldrath wrote:
I mean, if we go back it's basically argentine land, that the british came, evicted the argentine settlers from, allegedly by argentina anyways i have no idea if they actually had sent settlers there prior to the english occupation or not. threatened them with greater force and barred argentines from resettling.
so i assume you will be giving the continental united states back to the indian tribes any day now. that gets a little complicated, especially considering they didn't make claims to the land as they didn't believe land should or could be "owned" so ownership of land is based on belief not on heritage? im only being so fickle because i believe all these arguments about ownership stem from a systemically wrong viewpoint. if you want to play the historical ownership point of view then every country in the world has problems with 'ownership' as pretty much all of them have had invaders or immigrants from 1 time to another. it is simply arbitrary to conclude that argentinas claim is close enough in time but the saxons (or celts) of englands isnt, or the greeks of cyprus etc etc etc. so we have to draw a line. and that line seems to clearly be the end of the second world war. that was the end of empire, and foreign control of nations being acceptable. so we look at the world map, and apart from really obvious cases of fuck ups like the maps drawn up by the colonial powers in africa/asia minor, we try and stick to that status quo. and in that situation the falklands are british. any historical argument grounded before 1945 doesnt make any sense as countries were pretty much free to invade whoever they wanted based on a 'might is right' doctrine. I did say it was a very complicated issue, because of reasons like this. and that both sides had their arguments, both very reasonable ones, so it's hard to say which side is "right". but that the self determination stance of the british that they remain british because they choose to hurts real people the least. you've got to be able to see it from both points of view, i think when you do you realize that argentina isn't exactly baseless in their claims. How would you sum up the Argentinian arguments? They inhabited the islands for about 10 years and were fully aware of conflicting claims made before their own. So the basis of their argument is... it's close to us, so we own it? it was given to them by spain as part of their independence. essentially it was a part of their country ever since they became a country, and then they were forcibly evicted by the british, who threatened them and did not allow them to reinhabit it, which let the british to illegally occupy part of their country. now there's just the descendants of the british left there who surprise surprise want it to stay british and claim it as their own. to them it is a part of their country, from their founding, that's since been illegally occupied by the british, who have no legitimate claim to it and have no intention of leaving. it was given to them by spain as part of their independence. essentially it was a part of their country ever since they became a country, and then they were forcibly evicted by the british, who threatened them and did not allow them to reinhabit it, which let the british to illegally occupy part of their country. now there's just the descendants of the british left there who surprise surprise want it to stay british and claim it as their own Lol realy? i didnt knew this at all. Then the argentinian claim on the islands is extremely strong imo and england has no leg to stand on at all. If the Islas Malvinas voted almost unanimously in a referendum to leave Argentina, join the UK and rename themselves The Falkland Islands what argument would there possibly be for preventing them from having their way? The argument that citizens are not allowed to decide to wich state they want to belong,its not their decission.
Of course it is the decision of the citizens. That is democracy; that is what Europe stands for. Spain didn't have any basis for claiming the Falklands except that they were close to the territory they had already claimed (e.g. Argentina). Their argument 'we claimed Argentina, that includes the Falklands despite the fact that we did not discover or settle these islands', doesn't hold up.
For reference, they were first discovered by the Portuguese, then visited multiple times by the British and named, then claimed by France/Britain.
|
An awful lot of weird people on TL who claim to be fans of democracy are being completely anti democratic in this case.
I guess that's prerogative of leftist to always support the 'little guy' (in this case colonial Argentina) even when they're blatantly in the wrong.
|
On April 14 2013 01:22 Rassy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2013 22:57 Keldrath wrote:On April 13 2013 22:45 bardtown wrote:On April 13 2013 22:34 Keldrath wrote:On April 13 2013 22:22 turdburgler wrote:On April 13 2013 21:20 Keldrath wrote:On April 13 2013 21:09 turdburgler wrote:On April 13 2013 21:02 Keldrath wrote:
I mean, if we go back it's basically argentine land, that the british came, evicted the argentine settlers from, allegedly by argentina anyways i have no idea if they actually had sent settlers there prior to the english occupation or not. threatened them with greater force and barred argentines from resettling.
so i assume you will be giving the continental united states back to the indian tribes any day now. that gets a little complicated, especially considering they didn't make claims to the land as they didn't believe land should or could be "owned" so ownership of land is based on belief not on heritage? im only being so fickle because i believe all these arguments about ownership stem from a systemically wrong viewpoint. if you want to play the historical ownership point of view then every country in the world has problems with 'ownership' as pretty much all of them have had invaders or immigrants from 1 time to another. it is simply arbitrary to conclude that argentinas claim is close enough in time but the saxons (or celts) of englands isnt, or the greeks of cyprus etc etc etc. so we have to draw a line. and that line seems to clearly be the end of the second world war. that was the end of empire, and foreign control of nations being acceptable. so we look at the world map, and apart from really obvious cases of fuck ups like the maps drawn up by the colonial powers in africa/asia minor, we try and stick to that status quo. and in that situation the falklands are british. any historical argument grounded before 1945 doesnt make any sense as countries were pretty much free to invade whoever they wanted based on a 'might is right' doctrine. I did say it was a very complicated issue, because of reasons like this. and that both sides had their arguments, both very reasonable ones, so it's hard to say which side is "right". but that the self determination stance of the british that they remain british because they choose to hurts real people the least. you've got to be able to see it from both points of view, i think when you do you realize that argentina isn't exactly baseless in their claims. How would you sum up the Argentinian arguments? They inhabited the islands for about 10 years and were fully aware of conflicting claims made before their own. So the basis of their argument is... it's close to us, so we own it? it was given to them by spain as part of their independence. essentially it was a part of their country ever since they became a country, and then they were forcibly evicted by the british, who threatened them and did not allow them to reinhabit it, which let the british to illegally occupy part of their country. now there's just the descendants of the british left there who surprise surprise want it to stay british and claim it as their own. to them it is a part of their country, from their founding, that's since been illegally occupied by the british, who have no legitimate claim to it and have no intention of leaving. it was given to them by spain as part of their independence. essentially it was a part of their country ever since they became a country, and then they were forcibly evicted by the british, who threatened them and did not allow them to reinhabit it, which let the british to illegally occupy part of their country. now there's just the descendants of the british left there who surprise surprise want it to stay british and claim it as their own Lol realy? i didnt knew this at all. Then the argentinian claim on the islands is extremely strong imo and england has no leg to stand on at all. "If the Islas Malvinas voted almost unanimously in a referendum to leave Argentina, join the UK and rename themselves The Falkland Islands what argument would there possibly be for preventing them from having their way?" The argument that citizens are not allowed to decide to wich state they want to belong (for manny good reasons),its not their decission to make.
If it were true then maybe. But the British did not evict anyone because there was no one there to evict. The British also did not recognize the islands as belonging to Spain. How can someone give away something that they do not own?
Also, the British government thinks that it's citizens are allowed to vote on which country they belong to. The Falklanders got their vote and the Scottish get their vote next year. The Welsh and Northern Irish do not currently want a vote.
|
On April 14 2013 01:33 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
An awful lot of weird people on TL who claim to be fans of democracy are being completely anti democratic in this case.
I guess that's prerogative of leftist to always support the 'little guy' (in this case colonial Argentina) even when they're blatantly in the wrong.
Lets just bring left vs right into everything and try to twist it to support our own opinions...
|
How is argentinia wrong?
This is not about argentinia beeing a terrible country btw, that should be completely irrelevant and this is also not about wanting to support the underdog.
If spain gave them the islands when they became independant, then it are their islands?
Spain was a super power in thoose days and european countrys shuffled around colonys now and then.
If spain got the islands from france (all following the laws of that time and with the majority of superpowers of thoose days agreeing with it (spain and france definatly must have agreed)) then it are spains islands and if spain then decides to give them to argentina as part of their independance it are argentinias islands. Its just because this all happend hunderds of years ago and it now is more or less a status quo, that the british think they can pull this off.
If denmark would give greenland full independance, and the next day the brits invade it and start making settlements there and chasing away the current population and then hold a referendum noone would accept it.
I dont want to see the islands become argentinian at all btw but this is more about who is fundamentally right or wrong.
When we allow citizens to decide upon wich state they should belong manny countrys will fall apart.
Even the usa will fall apart eventually in that case. Rich areas of countrys will want to become independant from the poor areas of the country. Alaska could become a state itself with middle east like wealth for all its citizens, leaving the south of america to take care of itself.
|
Strange, this notion of Spain giving the islands to Argentina. Spain didn't possess the islands. They didn't have a permanent residence there. They were granting Argentina the rights to something they had no right to. Why does this give Argentina a claim to the islands? It wouldn't work in any other legal situation, so why does it here?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
