|
On March 12 2013 16:32 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 16:28 Jaaaaasper wrote: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? 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.
It's like, the contrary of what happened 
|
United States43956 Posts
|
Man, this thread is definitely reminiscent of a certain similar conflict. I guess for all the civilization we have today, we're still just not willing to give up land. Very strong sentiments of ownership when it comes to territory, and I suppose that's to be expected. I have no opinion on the Falkland Islands specifically, but it will be somewhat interesting to see how this plays out (or whether it does at all for the decades to come).
|
Even if you are a hardcore anti-imperialist, the Argentinian case is still pretty weak. For the love of God, in the Falkland Wars, the island was invaded by Argentina with many of the Falkland residents siding with the British and from what I saw, none siding with the Argentinians or even becoming guerrillas.
|
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.
It has been that way for thousands of years in human history, but the age of "take the territory by force" has pretty much ended. It is very unfair that white dudes already claimed many parts of the world through force and decided it shouldn't be the way any more once they have enough. However, that's how it is. It pretty much boils down to; it was ok to use force before, but not anymore. The questoin is, where we draw the line. Land claimed by force 2000 years ago belongs to who? How about 500? or 10?
|
United States43956 Posts
On March 12 2013 16:41 Aerisky wrote:
Man, this thread is definitely reminiscent of a certain similar conflict. I guess for all the civilization we have today, we're still just not willing to give up land. Very strong sentiments of ownership when it comes to territory, and I suppose that's to be expected. I have no opinion on the Falkland Islands specifically, but it will be somewhat interesting to see how this plays out (or whether it does at all for the decades to come).
On the contrary, had the vote gone in favour of the Argentinians then land would have been given up. That is the British position on the matter.
|
On March 12 2013 16:32 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 16:28 Jaaaaasper wrote: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? 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.
Selling the brits our latest aim9l missiles was a pretty big deal back then =/
|
United States43956 Posts
On March 12 2013 16:44 Shiragaku wrote:
Even if you are a hardcore anti-imperialist, the Argentinian case is still pretty weak. For the love of God, in the Falkland Wars, the island was invaded by Argentina with many of the Falkland residents siding with the British and from what I saw, none siding with the Argentinians or even becoming guerrillas.
If you're a hardcore anti-imperialist then self determination, which the Argentine case is built on denying, is the most important thing to you. The Argentine argument is that an ancient imperialistic claim passed indirectly to a nation is grounds for a hostile invasion of another country nowhere near yours and the coercion of the native population. That's not especially anti-imperialist. Britain doesn't have a great track record on imperialism but we certainly weren't the imperialistic ones with the Falklands.
|
On March 12 2013 16:48 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 16:44 Shiragaku wrote:
Even if you are a hardcore anti-imperialist, the Argentinian case is still pretty weak. For the love of God, in the Falkland Wars, the island was invaded by Argentina with many of the Falkland residents siding with the British and from what I saw, none siding with the Argentinians or even becoming guerrillas. If you're a hardcore anti-imperialist then self determination, which the Argentine case is built on denying, is the most important thing to you. The Argentine argument is that an ancient imperialistic claim passed indirectly to a nation is grounds for a hostile invasion of another country nowhere near yours and the coercion of the native population. That's not especially anti-imperialist. Britain doesn't have a great track record on imperialism but we certainly weren't the imperialistic ones with the Falklands.
I am not too familiar about the Falkland Wars, but wasn't the government in charge of Argentina a military junta? I am still trying to come to terms to how the George Galloway leftists could support such a thing.
And although I support the self-determination of the Falkland Islands, I would be pretty worried about having a major power right next door to me if I was Argentina.
|
On March 12 2013 16:55 Shiragaku wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 16:48 KwarK wrote:On March 12 2013 16:44 Shiragaku wrote:
Even if you are a hardcore anti-imperialist, the Argentinian case is still pretty weak. For the love of God, in the Falkland Wars, the island was invaded by Argentina with many of the Falkland residents siding with the British and from what I saw, none siding with the Argentinians or even becoming guerrillas. If you're a hardcore anti-imperialist then self determination, which the Argentine case is built on denying, is the most important thing to you. The Argentine argument is that an ancient imperialistic claim passed indirectly to a nation is grounds for a hostile invasion of another country nowhere near yours and the coercion of the native population. That's not especially anti-imperialist. Britain doesn't have a great track record on imperialism but we certainly weren't the imperialistic ones with the Falklands. I am not too familiar about the Falkland Wars, but wasn't the government in charge of Argentina a military junta? I am still trying to come to terms to how the George Galloway leftists could support such a thing. And although I support the self-determination of the Falkland Islands, I would be pretty worried about having a major power right next door to me if I was Argentina.
I dont see why they have to worry about Britain, not as if we are going to invade argentina.
|
On March 12 2013 16:55 Shiragaku wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 16:48 KwarK wrote:On March 12 2013 16:44 Shiragaku wrote:
Even if you are a hardcore anti-imperialist, the Argentinian case is still pretty weak. For the love of God, in the Falkland Wars, the island was invaded by Argentina with many of the Falkland residents siding with the British and from what I saw, none siding with the Argentinians or even becoming guerrillas. If you're a hardcore anti-imperialist then self determination, which the Argentine case is built on denying, is the most important thing to you. The Argentine argument is that an ancient imperialistic claim passed indirectly to a nation is grounds for a hostile invasion of another country nowhere near yours and the coercion of the native population. That's not especially anti-imperialist. Britain doesn't have a great track record on imperialism but we certainly weren't the imperialistic ones with the Falklands. I am not too familiar about the Falkland Wars, but wasn't the government in charge of Argentina a military junta? I am still trying to come to terms to how the George Galloway leftists could support such a thing. And although I support the self-determination of the Falkland Islands, I would be pretty worried about having a major power right next door to me if I was Argentina.
Major power with no ambition to take any of south america. Add to that the fact that at the time of the Falklands, the british were moving out of the area which sparked the attack.
Fuck we have american bases everywhere
|
United States43956 Posts
On March 12 2013 16:55 Shiragaku wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 16:48 KwarK wrote:On March 12 2013 16:44 Shiragaku wrote:
Even if you are a hardcore anti-imperialist, the Argentinian case is still pretty weak. For the love of God, in the Falkland Wars, the island was invaded by Argentina with many of the Falkland residents siding with the British and from what I saw, none siding with the Argentinians or even becoming guerrillas. If you're a hardcore anti-imperialist then self determination, which the Argentine case is built on denying, is the most important thing to you. The Argentine argument is that an ancient imperialistic claim passed indirectly to a nation is grounds for a hostile invasion of another country nowhere near yours and the coercion of the native population. That's not especially anti-imperialist. Britain doesn't have a great track record on imperialism but we certainly weren't the imperialistic ones with the Falklands. I am not too familiar about the Falkland Wars, but wasn't the government in charge of Argentina a military junta? I am still trying to come to terms to how the George Galloway leftists could support such a thing. And although I support the self-determination of the Falkland Islands, I would be pretty worried about having a major power right next door to me if I was Argentina.
Five
Hundred
Kilometres
Away
Seriously. I know that part of their claim is "look, we're close on the map" but the Atlantic is actually quite big, the islands are nowhere near Argentina or its territorial waters. To put it in perspective, the distance the island known as England is from the continental land of France is just thirty three kilometres.
|
On March 12 2013 14:39 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +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.
youre making a strong case for jewish settlements in the bank.
thats a dangerous way of looking at things 
not that falklands should be argentinian anyway,but your *generations are born and died on this piece of land* has i dare say a few hundred million people disagreeing ;o
|
On March 12 2013 17:03 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 16:55 Shiragaku wrote:On March 12 2013 16:48 KwarK wrote:On March 12 2013 16:44 Shiragaku wrote:
Even if you are a hardcore anti-imperialist, the Argentinian case is still pretty weak. For the love of God, in the Falkland Wars, the island was invaded by Argentina with many of the Falkland residents siding with the British and from what I saw, none siding with the Argentinians or even becoming guerrillas. If you're a hardcore anti-imperialist then self determination, which the Argentine case is built on denying, is the most important thing to you. The Argentine argument is that an ancient imperialistic claim passed indirectly to a nation is grounds for a hostile invasion of another country nowhere near yours and the coercion of the native population. That's not especially anti-imperialist. Britain doesn't have a great track record on imperialism but we certainly weren't the imperialistic ones with the Falklands. I am not too familiar about the Falkland Wars, but wasn't the government in charge of Argentina a military junta? I am still trying to come to terms to how the George Galloway leftists could support such a thing. And although I support the self-determination of the Falkland Islands, I would be pretty worried about having a major power right next door to me if I was Argentina. Five Hundred Kilometres Away Seriously. I know that part of their claim is "look, we're close on the map" but the Atlantic is actually quite big, the islands are nowhere near Argentina or its territorial waters. To put it in perspective, the distance the island known as England is from the continental land of France is just thirty three kilometres. I seriously doubt Argentina's claim includes distance from the country. If it is, Argentina is dumb. Distance itself has nothing to do with territorial disputes, and Argentina knows it, too.
|
United States43956 Posts
On March 12 2013 17:09 clementdudu wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 14:39 KwarK wrote: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. youre making a strong case for jewish settlements in the bank. thats a dangerous way of looking at things not that falklands should be argentinian anyway,but your *generations are born and died on this piece of land* has i dare say a few hundred million people disagreeing ;o
On the contrary, the fact that Palestine is a biblical homeland for the Jewish people has, by my logic, absolutely no bearing on the rights of the Palestinians to that land. The Jews may have been wronged by the Romans but wronging the Palestinians would not right it, the Jews who were wronged are long dead and the Arab Palestinians had built a life there subsequently. The issue we have today is that the Jews went ahead and took the land anyway and it's now become a generational conflict in which the people born into it aren't really responsible for it but that is a much more complicated issue than the Falklands.
|
On March 12 2013 16:48 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 16:44 Shiragaku wrote:
Even if you are a hardcore anti-imperialist, the Argentinian case is still pretty weak. For the love of God, in the Falkland Wars, the island was invaded by Argentina with many of the Falkland residents siding with the British and from what I saw, none siding with the Argentinians or even becoming guerrillas. If you're a hardcore anti-imperialist then self determination, which the Argentine case is built on denying, is the most important thing to you. The Argentine argument is that an ancient imperialistic claim passed indirectly to a nation is grounds for a hostile invasion of another country nowhere near yours and the coercion of the native population. That's not especially anti-imperialist. Britain doesn't have a great track record on imperialism but we certainly weren't the imperialistic ones with the Falklands.
I think the biggest problem is just lazy assumption: the British Empire was really evil, and people think it's safe to assume that the British were just automatically in the wrong and kicked off some natives (which is of course the sort of thing the British did all the time and still stand behind, such as in Diego Garcia), but unfortunately actual "reality" and "facts" and "history" support the British claim when it comes to the particular case of the Falklands.
|
On March 12 2013 17:09 clementdudu wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 14:39 KwarK wrote: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. youre making a strong case for jewish settlements in the bank. thats a dangerous way of looking at things not that falklands should be argentinian anyway,but your *generations are born and died on this piece of land* has i dare say a few hundred million people disagreeing ;o
This comparison would make a lot more sense if Argentinians actually lived in the Falklands. Or had ever lived there in any substantial presence.
|
On March 12 2013 17:03 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 16:55 Shiragaku wrote:On March 12 2013 16:48 KwarK wrote:On March 12 2013 16:44 Shiragaku wrote:
Even if you are a hardcore anti-imperialist, the Argentinian case is still pretty weak. For the love of God, in the Falkland Wars, the island was invaded by Argentina with many of the Falkland residents siding with the British and from what I saw, none siding with the Argentinians or even becoming guerrillas. If you're a hardcore anti-imperialist then self determination, which the Argentine case is built on denying, is the most important thing to you. The Argentine argument is that an ancient imperialistic claim passed indirectly to a nation is grounds for a hostile invasion of another country nowhere near yours and the coercion of the native population. That's not especially anti-imperialist. Britain doesn't have a great track record on imperialism but we certainly weren't the imperialistic ones with the Falklands. I am not too familiar about the Falkland Wars, but wasn't the government in charge of Argentina a military junta? I am still trying to come to terms to how the George Galloway leftists could support such a thing. And although I support the self-determination of the Falkland Islands, I would be pretty worried about having a major power right next door to me if I was Argentina. Five Hundred Kilometres Away Seriously. I know that part of their claim is "look, we're close on the map" but the Atlantic is actually quite big, the islands are nowhere near Argentina or its territorial waters. To put it in perspective, the distance the island known as England is from the continental land of France is just thirty three kilometres.
Don't give the French ideas. They will claim ownership of Great Britain, after all the name is derived from Brittany, a region in France. Do the Brits now need to have a referendum to show they don't want to be French? :p
Being serious, I agree with Kwark. If people have been living and working in an area for several generations then they should have the right to decide for themselves. This is not the same as saying a voting majority in a given area can decide because that would need to be a majority of those who have lived and worked there.
It does mean that country A can go and build settlements, wait a couple of hundred years and then claim ownership of a piece of a land. That is a problem. But we cannot go back in time and changed what happened so all we can try to do is stop it happening in future. It would be practically impossible to sort out all these land-grab disputes throughout history.
By the way, this is exactly why Israel are building settlements in the West Bank.
|
On March 12 2013 17:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 17:09 clementdudu wrote:On March 12 2013 14:39 KwarK wrote: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. youre making a strong case for jewish settlements in the bank. thats a dangerous way of looking at things not that falklands should be argentinian anyway,but your *generations are born and died on this piece of land* has i dare say a few hundred million people disagreeing ;o On the contrary, the fact that Palestine is a biblical homeland for the Jewish people has, by my logic, absolutely no bearing on the rights of the Palestinians to that land. The Jews may have been wronged by the Romans but wronging the Palestinians would not right it, the Jews who were wronged are long dead and the Arab Palestinians had built a life there subsequently. The issue we have today is that the Jews went ahead and took the land anyway and it's now become a generational conflict in which the people born into it aren't really responsible for it but that is a much more complicated issue than the Falklands. I'd say human society is trying find the middle ground. One one hand, if we take "respect original owners" to the extreme, then many parts of the world including Israel will be a mess. On the other hand, but if we go for "value what inhabitants today say" to the extreme, then any rogue country can invade a land by force or emigration, wait for generations and obtain the land. Neither is ideal. Kwark made a case for one side, I made a case for the other side. However, when it comes to this particular Falkland islands case, both believe that Argentina's claim is sketchy at best.
|
*many parts of the world including israel will be a mess* i would strongly argue for the fact its the biggest mess in the world for a few decades ;o
back on point,argentina has no rightful claim to the falklands,but youve got to understand why theres so much resentment,it probably feels like getting screwed over by the powerful western country over and over again.is there a way out of this?probably not
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
