EPTOn March 12 2013 15:39 Rezudox wrote:
I refer you to my first post in this thread.
I refer you to my first post in this thread.
There was noone living there when we took the island and we have had it controlled for 200 years.
Falklands referendum. - Page 3
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
There was noone living there when we took the island and we have had it controlled for 200 years. | ||
|
HunterX11
United States1048 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. This is basically Argentina's argument, too, only it wasn't even their flag, but Spain's. Maybe we should give them Florida too. | ||
|
Jaaaaasper
United States10225 Posts
On March 12 2013 14:20 Rezudox wrote: Ok. Imagine this situation. You come home one night to find there are a group of people you don't know in your house. You want them to leave, they want to stay. So they have a vote. The majority vote for staying in your house. Looks legit. For that metaphor to work there would have had to have been Argentinian citizens living on that island at one point. | ||
|
Rezudox
207 Posts
On March 12 2013 15:41 KwarK wrote: 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. They. Stole. The. Land. "Native population" means nothing in this case. | ||
KwarK
United States42867 Posts
On March 12 2013 15:39 Rezudox wrote: I refer you to my first post in this thread. Your first post was nonsensical and completely irrelevant to the issue. Firstly you characterise it as an Argentinian house, which it never was (people live in houses, nobody lived on the islands), then you say this was a sudden problem (nine generations too sudden for you?) and then you add that you're being displaced by their presence in your house which makes no sense at all because no Argentines have ever lived there. It was a really bad metaphor because it failed to describe the situation or the issue at hand in any way. The closest to relevancy it came was when it made the implicit point that a bunch of people showing up where some other people already live and forcefully staying there is wrong but if you think that is a point against the British and for the Argentines then you're delusional. | ||
|
Zaros
United Kingdom3692 Posts
On March 12 2013 15:45 Rezudox wrote: They. Stole. The. Land. "Native population" means nothing in this case. Who did they steal it from if it doesnt belong to anyone in the first place? | ||
|
KwarK
United States42867 Posts
On March 12 2013 15:45 Rezudox wrote: They. Stole. The. Land. "Native population" means nothing in this case. No. They. Didn't. Someone has to own the land for it to be stolen. The first and only native population of the Falklands have always been British. | ||
|
Sanctimonius
United Kingdom861 Posts
Argentina didn't exist as a country when Britain took the islands. This is a fact that is ignored by those who claim the islands for Argentina. Argentina came into existence after the Falklands were British. I'm not sure how else I can say it. The Falklands have been British longer than Argentina has been Argentinian. | ||
|
Rezudox
207 Posts
On March 12 2013 15:47 KwarK wrote: Someone has to own the land for it to be stolen. The first and only native population of the Falklands have always been British. I have no interest in furthering this discussion. Believe what you will. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42867 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States42867 Posts
On March 12 2013 15:56 Rezudox wrote: I have no interest in furthering this discussion. Believe what you will. Oddly enough I didn't actually think that anybody anywhere could actually believe the Argentinian case for the Falklands (Spain used to claim them, we inherited that claim). I honestly thought it was just something Argentinian politicians went on about to keep people thinking about some relatively barren rocks hundreds of miles away and not the glaring problems at home. I am genuinely surprised to be proven wrong on this, surprised and disappointed. | ||
|
Orek
1665 Posts
On March 12 2013 15:05 KwarK wrote: I'm not saying that this is the case in Falkland islands. I'm just having a problem with this idea that referendum matters when it comes to territorial disputes. Falkland islands are British territory AFAIK even if the referendum somehow supported Argentina unless U.K. willingly decided to hand over. Paper and treaty matters more than what current residents say. Or at least, the world is better off moving towards that way. Otherwise, as I said, China or India can push their emigration policy and legally colonize many parts of the world with their sheer number of population. Or, whichever country that has no legitimate sovereigntyover a territory today can ignore all complaints of the world and wait for generations until it becomes theirs.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. | ||
|
Jaaaaasper
United States10225 Posts
On March 12 2013 15:56 KwarK wrote: Ah yes, but the Treaty of Tordesillas in 1494 clearly puts the Falklands in the half of the globe claimed by Spain. Crap, does this mean I have to learn spanish? ¿cómo se dice "not only no but hell no" en español? | ||
|
KwarK
United States42867 Posts
On March 12 2013 15:59 Orek wrote: I'm not saying that this is the case in Falkland islands. I'm just having a problem with this idea that referendum matters when it comes to territorial disputes. Falkland islands are British territory AFAIK even if the referendum somehow supported Argentina unless U.K. willingly decided to hand over. Paper and treaty matters more than what current residents say. Or at least, the world is better off moving towards that way. Otherwise, as I said, China or India can push their emigration policy and legally colonize many parts of the world with their sheer number of population. Or, whichever country that has no legitimate sovereigntyover a territory today can ignore all complaints of the world and wait for generations until it becomes theirs. Forceful emigration is called invasion. China or India could hypothetically invade other countries but when they do that you're allowed to shoot at the people they send. Otherwise you can simply turn them around at the border. Also the paper in question here is worthless. Spain claimed most of the world as theirs, these were islands that were landed on by people from all European nations (never by natives from Argentina though) for resupplying their ships. Each time they'd be claimed but no permanent population was settled there. They were claimed at different times by the French, British and Spanish with the British claim dating to 1765, a full fifty years before the creation of Argentina. The Argentine claim is based on the inherited Spanish claim, which was one claim among many 250 years ago when people were just claiming any old rock they could. It had very little relevance then and absolutely no relevance now regarding an island full of people who were born there. | ||
|
thirtyapm
521 Posts
You know, like how Britain took all her colonies. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42867 Posts
On March 12 2013 16:23 thirtyapm wrote: Argentinians, just man up and take the island. You know, like how Britain took all her colonies. The penguins on the Falklands when we settled it never stood a chance. | ||
|
heliusx
United States2306 Posts
Argentinians, just man up and take the island. That worked out great last time. | ||
|
Jaaaaasper
United States10225 Posts
On March 12 2013 16:23 thirtyapm wrote: Argentinians, just man up and take the island. You know, like how Britain took all her colonies. Yeah because all of nato wouldn't go freedom the shit out of them if they tried that. That is the stupidest post I have seen in here yet, including the line I started mine with. Are you really suggesting that they start a war over a territory that Britain has a much better claim too, and whose population wants to remain British? | ||
|
Fenrax
United States5018 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States42867 Posts
On March 12 2013 16:28 Jaaaaasper wrote: Yeah because all of nato wouldn't go freedom the shit out of them if they tried that. That is the stupidest post I have seen in here yet, including the line I started mine with. Are you really suggesting that they start a war over a territory that Britain has a much better claim too, and whose population wants to remain British? Not sure if your post is serious or not but they did do that. They invaded the Falklands thirty years ago and held them until we sent in the Royal Marines. A thousand people died. Last time they did Reagan gave lukewarm support and Mitterrand tried to sell the Argentinians more Exocet missiles until Thatcher handbagged them both into line. NATO didn't have our backs although the US did eventually come through and offer us use of their bases, satellites and, if we suffered the catastrophic loss of an aircraft carrier, a carrier itself. | ||
| ||
