|
On April 16 2013 08:01 Acrofales wrote:
Anyway, neither Argentina, nor the UK give a shit about the handful of shepherds who live on the islands, they want the oil that's underneath them and the fishing rights that go with them. Who should they belong to? Just fucking sort it out (and the economic benefits) and stop bothering the rest of the world with your squabbling.
Clearly the UK only wants the oil, when we went to war for them before anyone even knew there was any oil.
|
On April 14 2013 02:59 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 01:51 Rassy wrote:
Well at least spain and france, who where both superpowers in thoose days must have agreed on spain getting the islands from france? then the only ones to object as superpower are the english (who where at war with spain and/or france all the time) for me the vote of spain and france together would weigh more then the vote of the english (even though i love england way more then i love france or spain)
By your logic:
Spain got them from France - they're Spanish
England got them from Spain - they're English.
Think things through please.
Well there are 2 things
There is the reasonable argument (wich for me is proximity and for others is letting the citizens decide) and there is the technical argument wich goes back to the law.
The technical argument would give the right to the islands to argentinia based on what i know now (wich isnt that much i have to admit), and for me the reasonable argument also would give them to argentinia though i have small doubts there i have to admit.
@ below: ok i see what you mean now and you do have a point.
We should then look whos claim on the islands was more reasonable at that time, the english one or spanish one.
Based on what i know now it would be the spanish one, because there where no brits on the island at that time and the spanish actually held control, and also because a majority of the superpowers of that time agreed with it.
The spanish and portugal had control of pretty much all of south america at that time i think and i have never heard of an english colony there, so i am inclined to believe that spains claim on the islands is the more reasonable. Although Britain first landed on, named, mapped and colonised the islands? The Spanish claim was made after the British were already established there, the Spanish 'conquered' the islands by destroying the English settlement. At any rate, this has nothing to do with Spain. Spain respects Gibraltar's right to self determination. Argentina made their own separate attempts to claim the islands, none of which were legal or successful.
Errr, Gibraltar is still a sticking point in British-Spanish relations. I don't know where you get your info. It is officially listed as a territorial dispute in the UN. That the Spanish and British get along in most other ways in the context of the EU, NATO, etc. doesn't mean Gibraltar has been forgotten about: they still claim it's theirs.
Also, the British didn't colonize the islands first. That was the French, and they sold their "colony" to the Spaniards, who made it part of the Buenos Aires colony (which later became Argentina), so in that sense, Argentina was there first. Anyway, "who was there first" or "who named it" is a terrible way to divvy up the world's conflicted territories: in that case you really should give Gibraltar to either Tunesia (Phoenicians were probably the first people there) or Saudi Arabia (the Moors named it Gibraltar) :p
|
On April 16 2013 08:09 Zaros wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2013 08:01 Acrofales wrote:
Anyway, neither Argentina, nor the UK give a shit about the handful of shepherds who live on the islands, they want the oil that's underneath them and the fishing rights that go with them. Who should they belong to? Just fucking sort it out (and the economic benefits) and stop bothering the rest of the world with your squabbling. Clearly the UK only wants the oil, when we went to war for them before anyone even knew there was any oil.
Zzzzz, the war was 95% politics. The UK went to war, because the Iron Lady needed to win an election. Just as Argentina went to war because the Junta needed to show off their military might abroad as a distraction from internal politics.
|
On April 16 2013 08:23 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2013 08:09 Zaros wrote:On April 16 2013 08:01 Acrofales wrote:
Anyway, neither Argentina, nor the UK give a shit about the handful of shepherds who live on the islands, they want the oil that's underneath them and the fishing rights that go with them. Who should they belong to? Just fucking sort it out (and the economic benefits) and stop bothering the rest of the world with your squabbling. Clearly the UK only wants the oil, when we went to war for them before anyone even knew there was any oil. Zzzzz, the war was 95% politics. The UK went to war, because the Iron Lady needed to win an election. Just as Argentina went to war because the Junta needed to show off their military might abroad as a distraction from internal politics.
Britain went to war because she was attacked. Many of the members of Baroness Thatcher's government argued against fighting back because it just wasn't possible for the Royal Navy to take them back. Patriotism, not the need to win an election, is the reason Thatcher decided to go to war. There was zero chance that she was not going to go to war, election or not.
|
On April 16 2013 08:04 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2013 07:34 HunterX11 wrote:On April 16 2013 07:11 oneofthem wrote:
this kind of thing needs a better framework to get solved.
usually the conflict arises due to colonial legacy which results in a proximate territory to a colonial country with residents from the colonizing country living there long term. so in this situation the colony residents have their personal right to live on the land in conflict with some grand historical unfairness felt by the nationalistic colonial country nearby over claim to the resources found on the piece of island/territory.
without a way of recognizing both of these interests and arguments, a conflict will proceed with each side only advancing their own argument with no middle ground. the result is that the probability of armed conflict and tension rise, while the space for constructive and cooperative agreement get closed.
britain can administer the islands and grant argentina some stake in the resource of the island. Britain and Argentina actually did agree to a method to share resources of the islands in 1995, and Argentina withdrew in 2007. There really isn't that much need for a framework because there aren't really that many previously-uninhabited islands with a colonial history that are closeish but not in the recognized EEZ of the nearest country. I'm not sure if there are really any other islands anywhere with a remotely comparable situation to that in the Falklands. Gibraltar, Ceuta, Melilla, Turkish Cyprus, Taiwan. Each unique, but comparable (and yes, I know Ceuta and Melilla aren't islands).
None of those were terra nullius during for the entire historical era, though. Gibraltar is the youngest occupied island at a bit short of a millennium, but even that is literally visible from two countries, so it's a much more obvious territory dispute. Only Cyprus among those has any distance from the closest country.
Honestly, I think the closest comparison would be if Morocco claimed the Canary Islands, only even then it's a distant comparison because the Canaries actually are close to Morocco, and they have natives.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the established EEZ concept is only established because there's an agreement about it. If a country rejects it and instead argue on colonial etc grounds that a piece of land is theirs, then that's still a conflict in the same vein. china's claim on those islands for instance
|
On April 16 2013 08:56 oneofthem wrote:
the established EEZ concept is only established because there's an agreement about it. If a country rejects it and instead argue on colonial etc grounds that a piece of land is theirs, then that's still a conflict in the same vein. china's claim on those islands for instance
China pretty much argues that Pluto is part of its nautical territory so it's not the best example for meaningful non-hyperbolic claims though. The point is that while the Falklands are closer to Argentina than anywhere else, they're not really "close" in an absolute sense; at least, not close enough for anyone from Argentina to have found them first.
|
England6749 Posts
On April 16 2013 03:37 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2013 03:29 Reason wrote:On April 14 2013 14:51 Orek wrote:
lol this thread came back while I was away from internet for a few days. I don't think I have much to add at this point. I have already made my point that "self-determination" can be a dangerous argument. UK's claim sounds more solid, but self-determination is/should not be the ultimate decider as I have explained from 2nd page on. I wouldn't go as far to say refereundum is irrelevant, but it doesn't have much to with this territorial dispute. UK's claim still stands EVEN IF the referendum were in favor for Argentina or vice versa. No. Our claim is "the people want to stay with us". Self determination is the only, and thus the ultimate, decider. Yet it is not considered such an ultimate decider in the case of regions wanting to break free. While it might not be the most clearcut case, just to stay on UK issues, what about Scottish self-determination? Would you support Scottish independence? Because the main British political parties sure wouldn't.
but they are having a vote on it? if they want to leave they are welcome to it. it would be a foolish thing for scotland, but they are free to vote on it if they wish.
On April 16 2013 08:23 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2013 08:09 Zaros wrote:On April 16 2013 08:01 Acrofales wrote:
Anyway, neither Argentina, nor the UK give a shit about the handful of shepherds who live on the islands, they want the oil that's underneath them and the fishing rights that go with them. Who should they belong to? Just fucking sort it out (and the economic benefits) and stop bothering the rest of the world with your squabbling. Clearly the UK only wants the oil, when we went to war for them before anyone even knew there was any oil. Zzzzz, the war was 95% politics. The UK went to war, because the Iron Lady needed to win an election. Just as Argentina went to war because the Junta needed to show off their military might abroad as a distraction from internal politics.
and the soldiers who did the actual fighting, they only showed up to help thatcher win an election?
|
On April 16 2013 10:21 turdburgler wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2013 03:37 Tobberoth wrote:On April 16 2013 03:29 Reason wrote:On April 14 2013 14:51 Orek wrote:
lol this thread came back while I was away from internet for a few days. I don't think I have much to add at this point. I have already made my point that "self-determination" can be a dangerous argument. UK's claim sounds more solid, but self-determination is/should not be the ultimate decider as I have explained from 2nd page on. I wouldn't go as far to say refereundum is irrelevant, but it doesn't have much to with this territorial dispute. UK's claim still stands EVEN IF the referendum were in favor for Argentina or vice versa. No. Our claim is "the people want to stay with us". Self determination is the only, and thus the ultimate, decider. Yet it is not considered such an ultimate decider in the case of regions wanting to break free. While it might not be the most clearcut case, just to stay on UK issues, what about Scottish self-determination? Would you support Scottish independence? Because the main British political parties sure wouldn't. but they are having a vote on it? if they want to leave they are welcome to it. it would be a foolish thing for scotland, but they are free to vote on it if they wish. Show nested quote +On April 16 2013 08:23 Acrofales wrote:On April 16 2013 08:09 Zaros wrote:On April 16 2013 08:01 Acrofales wrote:
Anyway, neither Argentina, nor the UK give a shit about the handful of shepherds who live on the islands, they want the oil that's underneath them and the fishing rights that go with them. Who should they belong to? Just fucking sort it out (and the economic benefits) and stop bothering the rest of the world with your squabbling. Clearly the UK only wants the oil, when we went to war for them before anyone even knew there was any oil. Zzzzz, the war was 95% politics. The UK went to war, because the Iron Lady needed to win an election. Just as Argentina went to war because the Junta needed to show off their military might abroad as a distraction from internal politics. and the soldiers who did the actual fighting, they only showed up to help thatcher win an election?
No, of course not. But since when do soldiers at the time know the real motives behind a war? Obviously Thatcher, at the time, didn't say "hey guys, I need to shift the focus away from the terrible unemployment from all the closing coal mines, luckily Argentina just invaded these useless rocks 20,000 miles away. Lets use that, why don't you go and give your lives for me, so I can win an election?"
Just as the Argentinean junta didn't sell it as "dudes, we completely fucked up and are in the middle of an economic crisis, because we lined our pockets with all the money we could rob from the country. We know that we can't keep tossing all dissenters off planes above the Atlantic, because there are just more and more of them, so you know what, we will send a load of soldiers to die over a load of useless rocks in a show of patriotism, just so nobody focuses on that!"
EDIT: and of course I think that there are Argentineans (even junta leaders at the time) who truly believe the Malvinas are Argentinean territory and worth fighting for, just as Maggie Thatcher was a nationalist who strongly believed in fighting for the Falklands as a part of Britain. But the reason the war actually HAPPENED, was because it was politically opportune.
|
I highly doubt there would be another conflict and even if the 1% chance scenario actually happened, Argentina and the UK are very different countries now especially in economic terms heck South American as well in terms of geopolitics.
|
EDIT: and of course I think that there are Argentineans (even junta leaders at the time) who truly believe the Malvinas are Argentinean territory and worth fighting for, just as Maggie Thatcher was a nationalist who strongly believed in fighting for the Falklands as a part of Britain. But the reason the war actually HAPPENED, was because it was politically opportune.
She wasn't a nationalist, she was a patriot.
And can you back what you're saying up? I honestly don't think political concerns were any kind of priority in her mind at the moment. She would calculate the politics, but the largest part of that calculation were her unfortunately outdated ideas about the honor and sanctity of British soil and citizens.
|
On April 14 2013 01:42 Rassy wrote:
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.
Spain wasn't a super power in those days, it was in decline and that's why it didn't own the islands at the time it supposedly "gave" them to Argentina, Britain never relinquished its original claim on the islands so they weren't France or Spain's to give away.
The Falkland Islands were first discovered by an Englishman in 1690, some of the first settlers there were British, the UK has had by far the longest presence on the islands of any country and has owned them since 1833 after the first illegal Argentine settlement was destroyed by the US Navy for piracy, you can't just ask people who have lived somewhere for generations to leave because some other people lived there for a very short period of time nearly two hundred years ago.
Also the proximity argument makes no sense either, should New Caledonia belong to Australia? Bermuda to the US? Channel Islands to France? Saint Pierre and Miquelon to Canada?
On April 16 2013 03:37 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2013 03:29 Reason wrote:On April 14 2013 14:51 Orek wrote:
lol this thread came back while I was away from internet for a few days. I don't think I have much to add at this point. I have already made my point that "self-determination" can be a dangerous argument. UK's claim sounds more solid, but self-determination is/should not be the ultimate decider as I have explained from 2nd page on. I wouldn't go as far to say refereundum is irrelevant, but it doesn't have much to with this territorial dispute. UK's claim still stands EVEN IF the referendum were in favor for Argentina or vice versa. No. Our claim is "the people want to stay with us". Self determination is the only, and thus the ultimate, decider. Yet it is not considered such an ultimate decider in the case of regions wanting to break free. While it might not be the most clearcut case, just to stay on UK issues, what about Scottish self-determination? Would you support Scottish independence? Because the main British political parties sure wouldn't.
I do not support Scottish independence and will be voting No in September 2014. And of course the British political parties wouldn't support the break up of Britain.
On April 16 2013 08:23 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2013 08:09 Zaros wrote:On April 16 2013 08:01 Acrofales wrote:
Anyway, neither Argentina, nor the UK give a shit about the handful of shepherds who live on the islands, they want the oil that's underneath them and the fishing rights that go with them. Who should they belong to? Just fucking sort it out (and the economic benefits) and stop bothering the rest of the world with your squabbling. Clearly the UK only wants the oil, when we went to war for them before anyone even knew there was any oil. Zzzzz, the war was 95% politics. The UK went to war, because the Iron Lady needed to win an election. Just as Argentina went to war because the Junta needed to show off their military might abroad as a distraction from internal politics.
The main difference being that the war was STARTED by Argentina, the British government certainly didn't see it coming and a lot of ministers resigned in shame when it happened.
|
"Also, the British didn't colonize the islands first. That was the French, and they sold their "colony" to the Spaniards, who made it part of the Buenos Aires colony (which later became Argentina), so in that sense, Argentina was there first. Anyway, "who was there first" or "who named it" is a terrible way to divvy up the world's conflicted territories: in that case you really should give Gibraltar to either Tunesia (Phoenicians were probably the first people there) or Saudi Arabia (the Moors named it Gibraltar)"
Here, i am not the only one who says it.
It seems that the french had the colony first and sold it to spain, who gave argentinia and the islands its indepandance.
To put it in a bit populistic way: as soon as spain gave the colony its independance the brits saw their change and grabbed control.
Gibraltar is a terrible example btw to support englands case,its sticking out there on the shore of spain and it makes absolutely no sense for it to be british but o well.
Maybe a shared control is the best what argentinian can hope for, split the islands and more importantly the offshore oil reserves. Arent there more then 1 island annyway?
the argentinians could get one of the uninhabited islands to put on some lighthouse or whatever and they could devide the offshore grounds.
Annyway:the brits wont go and neither would i if i where british lol. 200b is alot of oil though we should not overestimate it. in the large sceme of things 200b isnt that much annymore.
With an argentinian lady soon to become queen of the netherlands i feel the need to keep supporting argentinia in this case
About the scottisch referendum.
Thats a fake as well lol, the brits only agreed to the referendum because they have the confidence that the outcome will be "NO" If the outcome was expected to be "YES" then the brits would not agree with the referendum.
Why is there no referendum about flaanders becoming independant? i guess because that referendum would actually pass. Same for northern ireland (wich is basicly a part of ireland no?)
|
On April 19 2013 02:04 Rassy wrote:"Also, the British didn't colonize the islands first. That was the French, and they sold their "colony" to the Spaniards, who made it part of the Buenos Aires colony (which later became Argentina), so in that sense, Argentina was there first. Anyway, "who was there first" or "who named it" is a terrible way to divvy up the world's conflicted territories: in that case you really should give Gibraltar to either Tunesia (Phoenicians were probably the first people there) or Saudi Arabia (the Moors named it Gibraltar)" Here, i am not the only one who says it. It seems that the french had the colony first and sold it to spain, who gave argentinia and the islands its indepandance. To put it in a bit populistic way: as soon as spain gave the colony its independance the brits saw their change and grabbed control. Gibraltar is a terrible example btw to support englands case,its sticking out there on the shore of spain and it makes absolutely no sense for it to be british but o well. Maybe a shared control is the best what argentinian can hope for, split the islands and more importantly the offshore oil reserves. Arent there more then 1 island annyway? the argentinians could get one of the uninhabited islands to put on some lighthouse or whatever and they could devide the offshore grounds. Annyway:the brits wont go and neither would i if i where british lol. 200b is alot of oil though we should not overestimate it. in the large sceme of things 200b isnt that much annymore. With an argentinian lady soon to become queen of the netherlands i feel the need to keep supporting argentinia in this case About the scottisch referendum. Thats a fake as well lol, the brits only agreed to the referendum because they have the confidence that the outcome will be "NO" If the outcome was expected to be "YES" then the brits would not agree with the referendum. Why is there no referendum about flaanders becoming independant? i guess because that referendum would actually pass. Same for northern ireland (wich is basicly a part of ireland no?)
"The brits"
You do realize the Scottish are British?
And Northern Ireland has like 98% support for staying in the UK, that's why there's no referendum there, no one wants it.
Posting again because everyone seemed to ignore it.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/qmtFThi.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/mL7lVFX.jpg)
|
Argentina deserves nothing and calling either of these referendums fake is terrible misinformation.
|
On March 12 2013 13:29 docvoc wrote:Most of the debate boils down to Argentinians saying that the Islands are theirs, and neglecting all surveys that say that the islanders want to remain British. The British side is more like, we <3 your reserves, lets let the islanders speak for themselves because we know they would rather be backed by our government than Argentina's. The people have spoken, we are passed the point of "neo-colonialism" in the Falklands, at least in my opinion. EDIT: Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 13:28 Larkin wrote:
The existence of nations is stupid anyway, it's only a restrictive concept. But if the people want to be considered part of our miserable land, then Argentina should stop trying to make them happier.
If we gave the Falklands to Argentina, why shouldn't France give Corsica to Italy? Or Turkey give Istanbul to Greece? There are millions of terretorial disputes all over the world, the UN really should look into settling them once and for all. I really think that this is way over the top nihilism. The idea of nations is not stupid, I don't know how you came to that concept or idea. Furthermore, the UN does not have any kind of power like that, the UN is just a facilitator for debate. In fact, the UN was created originally for the U.S. to have a leg up on Communism (despite the facade it put on as a world mediator), and not for the purpose it serves in more recent times after the CCP was considered the accepted Chinese government.
Well this explains why USSR had one of the vetoes from the getgo, granting them equal power to USA.
Anyway. I don't see why Argentina would be entitled to the islands. It had been colonized by the british even before Argentina existed. The Falklanders have their right to be independent, and as independents, they have a right to pick a country to be afilliated with. They clearly wants to be considered british, so good for them. Time to move on.
|
On April 19 2013 04:14 ninini wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 13:29 docvoc wrote:Most of the debate boils down to Argentinians saying that the Islands are theirs, and neglecting all surveys that say that the islanders want to remain British. The British side is more like, we <3 your reserves, lets let the islanders speak for themselves because we know they would rather be backed by our government than Argentina's. The people have spoken, we are passed the point of "neo-colonialism" in the Falklands, at least in my opinion. EDIT: On March 12 2013 13:28 Larkin wrote:
The existence of nations is stupid anyway, it's only a restrictive concept. But if the people want to be considered part of our miserable land, then Argentina should stop trying to make them happier.
If we gave the Falklands to Argentina, why shouldn't France give Corsica to Italy? Or Turkey give Istanbul to Greece? There are millions of terretorial disputes all over the world, the UN really should look into settling them once and for all. I really think that this is way over the top nihilism. The idea of nations is not stupid, I don't know how you came to that concept or idea. Furthermore, the UN does not have any kind of power like that, the UN is just a facilitator for debate. In fact, the UN was created originally for the U.S. to have a leg up on Communism (despite the facade it put on as a world mediator), and not for the purpose it serves in more recent times after the CCP was considered the accepted Chinese government. Well this explains why USSR had one of the vetoes from the getgo, granting them equal power to USA.
Anyway. I don't see why Argentina would be entitled to the islands. It had been colonized by the british even before Argentina existed. The Falklanders have their right to be independent, and as independents, they have a right to pick a country to be afilliated with. They clearly wants to be considered british, so good for them. Time to move on.
Ahh, but who are the 5 permanent members of the Security Council?
|
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".
This is probably the best quote on this whole situation I think I've ever seen, in my entire life!
|
On April 19 2013 04:18 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 04:14 ninini wrote:On March 12 2013 13:29 docvoc wrote:Most of the debate boils down to Argentinians saying that the Islands are theirs, and neglecting all surveys that say that the islanders want to remain British. The British side is more like, we <3 your reserves, lets let the islanders speak for themselves because we know they would rather be backed by our government than Argentina's. The people have spoken, we are passed the point of "neo-colonialism" in the Falklands, at least in my opinion. EDIT: On March 12 2013 13:28 Larkin wrote:
The existence of nations is stupid anyway, it's only a restrictive concept. But if the people want to be considered part of our miserable land, then Argentina should stop trying to make them happier.
If we gave the Falklands to Argentina, why shouldn't France give Corsica to Italy? Or Turkey give Istanbul to Greece? There are millions of terretorial disputes all over the world, the UN really should look into settling them once and for all. I really think that this is way over the top nihilism. The idea of nations is not stupid, I don't know how you came to that concept or idea. Furthermore, the UN does not have any kind of power like that, the UN is just a facilitator for debate. In fact, the UN was created originally for the U.S. to have a leg up on Communism (despite the facade it put on as a world mediator), and not for the purpose it serves in more recent times after the CCP was considered the accepted Chinese government. Well this explains why USSR had one of the vetoes from the getgo, granting them equal power to USA.
Anyway. I don't see why Argentina would be entitled to the islands. It had been colonized by the british even before Argentina existed. The Falklanders have their right to be independent, and as independents, they have a right to pick a country to be afilliated with. They clearly wants to be considered british, so good for them. Time to move on. Ahh, but who are the 5 permanent members of the Security Council?
The members of the "Allies" from WW2.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 16 2013 10:16 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2013 08:56 oneofthem wrote:
the established EEZ concept is only established because there's an agreement about it. If a country rejects it and instead argue on colonial etc grounds that a piece of land is theirs, then that's still a conflict in the same vein. china's claim on those islands for instance China pretty much argues that Pluto is part of its nautical territory so it's not the best example for meaningful non-hyperbolic claims though. The point is that while the Falklands are closer to Argentina than anywhere else, they're not really "close" in an absolute sense; at least, not close enough for anyone from Argentina to have found them first.
that their claim is aggressive is kind of part of the point. with nationalistic claims that may not arise from any genuine grievances, what's on the other side to oppose those silly but strongly made claims? a piece of colonial contract.
imagine if you had more of a framework in place instead of this piece of colonial paper, it'll go further in limiting senseless nationalistic claims by undercutting their narrative of restoring justice to imperialism. makes for more sensible discussion than a scream match, which is what's going on now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
