EPTFalklands referendum. - Page 2
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Orek
1665 Posts
| ||
|
TotalBalanceSC2
Canada475 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States42867 Posts
On March 12 2013 14:33 Orek wrote: Referendum doesn't matter in deciding which country rightfully owns the territory. If it does, then China can just immigrate their mighty 1.3 billion people to many parts of the world and claim territories. I don't think that's how it's supposed to work. As far as I know, Falkland islands were Terra nullius at the time of British occupation, and Argentina(or any predecessor ruling body of the area) didn't have any control over the islands back then. I'm not an expert, I could be wrong, but I think U.K. can claim the islands not because of this irrelevant referendum nor the result of Falklands War, but because of establishing sovereignty over a terra nullius before others. Referendum is nice and all, but it doesn't really solidify nor nullify either side's claim, if you ask me. Generations of people living in a land give them far greater rights to it than a bit of paper would. The object of the law and civilised society are to protect people from injustices, when families have been born, lived, worked, grown old and died on a piece of land then invading it to subject them to a rule that is alien to the population is an injustice. That's the argument that justifies the very existence of the United States, that yeah, it was genocide and the land was never theirs but it'd be a greater evil to move 300,000,000 Americans back to Europe/Africa than to continue to fuck over the Indians. And at least the native Americans actually lived on the land before they were genocided and had it stolen, Argentina never occupied the Falklands, there really is absolutely no basis to the case beyond hurt feelings and the need to stir up nationalism. Smacking down the military junta was the kindest thing any nation did for Argentina, after the return of democracy they should have sent us flowers. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42867 Posts
On March 12 2013 14:39 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote: Oh well I don't think anyone was expecting anything different. Luckily from what I have heard the Argentine Navy is rather second rate so I doubt they would be foolish enough to attack again with their navy falling apart. They have stated that they do not intend to attempt to use military force to subject the British citizens of the Falklands to foreign (Argentine) rule again but that they still feel that they are theirs and want to regain them through diplomacy. The British stance is that we are perfectly happy for them to go to Argentina if that is what the people want. So, given no body able to overrule national governments nor any international body that thinks self determination is not the source of national rights, the matter is settled. Argentina might not like it but it is settled. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18831 Posts
On March 12 2013 14:39 KwarK wrote: Generations of people living in a land give them far greater rights to it than a bit of paper would. The object of the law and civilised society are to protect people from injustices, when families have been born, lived, worked, grown old and died on a piece of land then invading it to subject them to a rule that is alien to the population is an injustice. That's the argument that justifies the very existence of the United States, that yeah, it was genocide and the land was never theirs but it'd be a greater evil to move 300,000,000 Americans back to Europe/Africa than to continue to fuck over the Indians. And at least the native Americans actually lived on the land before they were genocided and had it stolen, Argentina never occupied the Falklands, there really is absolutely no basis to the case beyond hurt feelings and the need to stir up nationalism. Smacking down the military junta was the kindest thing any nation did for Argentina, after the return of democracy they should have sent us flowers. This can just as easily read as "That's the argument that justifies the very existence of English colonial settlements in North America that would go on to become the United States." We're in this bed together. | ||
|
Orek
1665 Posts
On March 12 2013 14:39 KwarK wrote: So, at an imaginary disputed islandsGenerations of people living in a land give them far greater rights to it than a bit of paper would. The object of the law and civilised society are to protect people from injustices, when families have been born, lived, worked, grown old and died on a piece of land then invading it to subject them to a rule that is alien to the population is an injustice. That's the argument that justifies the very existence of the United States, that yeah, it was genocide and the land was never theirs but it'd be a greater evil to move 300,000,000 Americans back to Europe/Africa than to continue to fuck over the Indians. And at least the native Americans actually lived on the land before they were genocided and had it stolen, Argentina never occupied the Falklands, there really is absolutely no basis to the case beyond hurt feelings and the need to stir up nationalism. Smacking down the military junta was the kindest thing any nation did for Argentina, after the return of democracy they should have sent us flowers. 1. Country A breaks every treaty and international law and invade the islands that Country B owns 2. Country A wins and expel all native citizens of Country B 3. immigrate people from Country A 4. refuse to negotiate for 200 years or something 5. boom, everyone on the islands wants to stay in Country A To be fair, that's how territories have been established in history, but I don't think that should be the way any more. It is so unfair for Country B although no one on the island 200 years later complains about it. That's why I think the referendum is not that important. Falkland islands are British territory IMO, but not for this referendum or people's support. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42867 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States42867 Posts
On March 12 2013 15:01 Orek wrote: So, at an imaginary disputed islands 1. Country A breaks every treaty and international law and invade the islands that Country B owns 2. Country A wins and expel all native citizens of Country B 3. immigrate people from Country A 4. refuse to negotiate for 200 years or something 5. boom, everyone on the islands wants to stay in Country A To be fair, that's how territories have been established in history, but I don't think that should be the way any more. It is so unfair for Country B although no one on the island 200 years later complains about it. That's why I think the referendum is not that important. Falkland islands are British territory IMO, but not for this referendum or people's support. Yeah, by step 5 all the people who did wrongs in step 1 and 2 are dead as are all the people wronged in step 1 and 2. All you have left are innocent people by step 5 who were born and live on the island. People exist independently of their national identity, no wrong is righted by attacking them. Going "some people from A had stuff taken from them by B so we're going to take from the descendants of B and give to the descendants of A and call it justice" is insane. What you're doing is in one sentence denouncing the act of taking from some people and giving to another and calling for it to happen some more. They're just people who want to live their lives under their own laws and customs, when it comes down to it it's that simple. Also in the case of the Falklands 2 didn't actually happen and the time 1 happened was when Argentina broke international law to invade the islands that Britain owned so that doesn't count against Britain either. | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
On March 12 2013 14:04 Zaros wrote: The Falklands war was before any oil was discovered, i believe the oil discovery has only been in the past few years. I didnt make myself clear, it was circulating amognst the south american hotshots that geologists speculated (with many good facts backing their speculation) that there were lots of oil in the atlantican coast, since the 60's. Argentina suspected there might be oil or at the very least, oil related goodies by acquiring the Falklands | ||
|
MountainDewJunkie
United States10341 Posts
On March 12 2013 15:02 KwarK wrote: I have no idea what your point is farva. My point is that the people born in a land, living in that land and working that land have intangible rights to it that exist in natural law. Natural law, you say? | ||
|
KwarK
United States42867 Posts
Care to refute it (although you might want to bear in mind your own justification for being in the US (unless you're an Indian in which case fuck those whities)). | ||
|
farvacola
United States18831 Posts
On March 12 2013 15:02 KwarK wrote: I have no idea what your point is farva. My point is that the people born in a land, living in that land and working that land have intangible rights to it that exist in natural law. Ok, well that I can agree with, as long as by "natural law" you mean something more like "natural law that we agree upon", or else I can simply point to the natural law inherent in killing and removing those who occupy land that you wish to live upon, as both humans and animals have been wont to do throughout history. | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
On March 12 2013 15:05 KwarK wrote: Yeah, by step 5 all the people who did wrongs in step 1 and 2 are dead as are all the people wronged in step 1 and 2. All you have left are innocent people by step 5 who were born and live on the island. People exist independently of their national identity, no wrong is righted by attacking them. Going "some people from A had stuff taken from them by B so we're going to take from the descendants of B and give to the descendants of A and call it justice" is insane. What you're doing is in one sentence denouncing the act of taking from some people and giving to another and calling for it to happen some more. Also in the case of the Falklands 2 didn't actually happen and the time 1 happened was when Argentina broke international law to invade the islands that Britain owned so that doesn't count against Britain either. Yes but its not like you want to give Argentina a % of the oil as well. Theres much more on the line than the simple confort of 5000 people, its billions in oil, and argentina has a historical point. Lets say I agree and I dont think the citizens of Falklands should be harassed by Argentina into abandoning their Brittish citizenship and colony status, that would just be wrong, and I care about justice. But England stole the Falklands from Argentina, and deliberately set a plan in motion in order for the ones capable of being charged of any guilt to be long dead long before anyone with weight in national politics gave any serious attention over the matter, leaving only a bunch of innocent colonists that masterfully claim the land to england, and their government and corporations. Shouldnt Argentina have a bit of a compensation ? What right to the Falklands does Brittain have after basically stealing it thro sheer force, an island thousands of miles far from its territory and on the door of Argentina, it does nothing but showoff the remains of an imperialist mindset that is no longer fit for the world. Either way, the citizens of Falklands are better of in the hands of the Britts, Cristina is .. uhgh | ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
On March 12 2013 15:13 D10 wrote: Yes but its not like you want to give Argentina a % of the oil as well. Theres much more on the line than the simple confort of 5000 people, its billions in oil, and argentina has a historical point. Lets say I agree and I dont think the citizens of Falklands should be harassed by Argentina into abandoning their Brittish citizenship and colony status, that would just be wrong, and I care about justice. But England stole the Falklands from Argentina, and deliberately set a plan in motion in order for the ones capable of being charged of any guilt to be long dead long before anyone with weight in national politics gave any serious attention over the matter, leaving only a bunch of innocent colonists that masterfully claim the land to england, and their government and corporations. Shouldnt Argentina have a bit of a compensation ? What right to the Falklands does Brittain have after basically stealing it thro sheer force, an island thousands of miles far from its territory and on the door of Argentina, it does nothing but showoff the remains of an imperialist mindset that is no longer fit for the world. Either way, the citizens of Falklands are better of in the hands of the Britts, Cristina is .. uhgh We never stole it, Argentina never owned it they claimed it and then they invaded our territory in 1982 and we reclaimed it. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States42867 Posts
On March 12 2013 15:13 D10 wrote: Yes but its not like you want to give Argentina a % of the oil as well. Theres much more on the line than the simple confort of 5000 people, its billions in oil, and argentina has a historical point. Lets say I agree and I dont think the citizens of Falklands should be harassed by Argentina into abandoning their Brittish citizenship and colony status, that would just be wrong, and I care about justice. But England stole the Falklands from Argentina, and deliberately set a plan in motion in order for the ones capable of being charged of any guilt to be long dead long before anyone with weight in national politics gave any serious attention over the matter, leaving only a bunch of innocent colonists that masterfully claim the land to england, and their government and corporations. Shouldnt Argentina have a bit of a compensation ? What right to the Falklands does Brittain have after basically stealing it thro sheer force, an island thousands of miles far from its territory and on the door of Argentina, it does nothing but showoff the remains of an imperialist mindset that is no longer fit for the world. Either way, the citizens of Falklands are better of in the hands of the Britts, Cristina is .. uhgh No Argentinians ever lived there. It's not in the Argentinian territorial waters. Why would we ever want to give them a % of the wealth of the place we now have to pay a lot to defend because given the chance they tried to invade and steal it? They're lucky they don't have to pay indemnities after their flagrant, illegal and unjustifiable land grab in the Falklands War. It's nowhere near Argentina. They're the closest place but the South Atlantic is pretty big. | ||
|
Rezudox
207 Posts
On March 12 2013 14:25 KwarK wrote: That is a terrible metaphor for what happened. Try this one. You come home one night and discover that you have a neighbour. And not like a neighbour where you share a wall in a terraced house, he's got a detatched house with a few acres of land between you and him. And he's lived there all his life and was born there, as was his father, grandfather and so forth back for hundreds of years. But your family is pretty fucked up and you need to distract them from that so you decide his house should be yours and try and take it by force. His big brother comes round and forcibly evicts you from his house but lets you keep your house and you're so discredited by this that your kids rise up and it's actually the catalyst for the best thing to ever happen in your house but for some reason your kids still have this lingering feeling that that other house ought to be theirs. By this point the neighbour's family is getting quite tired of all this bullshit so they get together and all collectively declare that they don't want to be part of your family just in case anyone anywhere had any doubt. Even that metaphor isn't accurate. "We put a flag on it, its ours. Fuck off we are keeping it." Standard old world British policy. But that doesn't mean anyone should have to honour it today. | ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
On March 12 2013 15:36 Rezudox wrote: Even that metaphor isn't accurate. "We put a flag on it, its ours. Fuck off we are keeping it." Standard old world British policy. But that doesn't mean anyone should have to honour it today. How about self determination of peoples. | ||
|
Rezudox
207 Posts
On March 12 2013 15:38 Zaros wrote: How about self determination of peoples. I refer you to my first post in this thread. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42867 Posts
On March 12 2013 15:36 Rezudox wrote: Even that metaphor isn't accurate. "We put a flag on it, its ours. Fuck off we are keeping it." Standard old world British policy. But that doesn't mean anyone should have to honour it today. Did you somehow miss the decolonisation period following the second world war in which the old British Empire was systematically dismantled and power was restored to the native populations? Because if you didn't then what you just said could be taken as being extremely idiotic due to the glaring discrepancy between what you said and reality. That same process also hit the Falklands, it just so happened that the first and only native population of the Falklands have always been British and have very recently verified that by referendum. | ||
| ||
