Falklands referendum. - Page 6

Orek

1665 Posts

March 12 2013 12:04 GMT

#101

On March 12 2013 20:50 ZeRoX-45 wrote:

Yes they are clueless and my opinion about that is formed because I debated many times over Kosovo, who was stolen from us, and many westerners tried to prove me that I'm wrong even tho they hadnt one valid argument that Kosovo should be independent. I feel same way about this. England proclaimed territory with act they published themselves, yes, very strong ground.

Also, sorry for mistake I mixed it with my language

I don't know man. What UK and other countries did on Kosovo issue is one thing, this Falkland / Malvinas issue is another thing. "One country did a bad thing on a issue IMO" doesn't necessarily automatically translate into "that country must be the bad guy at other issues, too." I wouldn't support or condemn a country just because that country is the bad guy when my own country is at stake. It's a seperate issue. No reason to hold a grudge.

Caller

Poland8075 Posts

March 12 2013 12:05 GMT

#102

when france cedes alsace-lorraine back to germany, the us cedes the pacific to mexico, and turkey surrenders all its territory back to greece, and somebody fixes up the balkans, only then can u complain about the current status of the falklands

fabiano

Brazil4644 Posts

March 12 2013 12:07 GMT

#103

Venezuela and Cuba are in their current state because of their leaders...

Of course EU and especially USA will try to milk money from SA as much as they can, but that doesn't mean south american countries should completely shut off relations with them. A sovereing nation is able to defend themselves against "the american imperialism" through politics and negotiations.

We live in a globalized world, we need to have healthy relations with many other nations as possible. NK and Cuba are two examples of how bad it can go if you don't do that. Now look at Chile or Brazil which keeps healthy relations with everyone, from USA to Cuba. Sure we still have have so many problems of the 3rd world, but we are sloooowly getting out of there.

schaf

Germany1326 Posts

March 12 2013 12:09 GMT

#104

+ Show Spoiler +

On March 12 2013 18:04 Striferawr wrote:
Well i have been reading a little bit, it may be wrong since its wikipedia, but based upon this links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Falkland_Islands#USS_Lexington_raid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Vernet

And reading all of the posts, i guess either people like Kwark didn't care enough to read, or are just plain arrogant to do so. "being disappointed" that someone in the world is not saying the same that you are? quite a statement...

Well, allow me to disappoint you further, i hope that instead of taking such hit to your opinion of people, maybe you can rejoice in another person perspective.

I think its pretty clear for me why the referendum and what the population wants, and its importance is discussed.
I say discussed, in opposition to "just think about them first of all" which seams to be the position of several people.

If the population that is actually there is the result of a process where as far as i read

1 - it may have been some natives but none where found when the French first arrived
2 - France builds a small port/settlement
3- Britain arrives small port/settlement
3 - Spain after and agreement keeps the port buying it from France to avoid Britain to own the place
4 - Britain appears again but they are rushed with a bigger force from Spain that is sent from buenos aires
5 - England threatens war if they pull that shit again and said the island is theirs
6 - England stops giving a shit because they are at war with one of their colonies (USA) and they go away
7 - time goes by its used by British and American ships but no administration is there
8 - this German guy Vernet ask permission to build a settlement in the former Spanish port and goes with their approval
9 - once there he is appointed governor by the United Provinces of River Plate and raises the flag from them and says you cant even fish here its mine
10 - he attacks some boats that were fishing there
11 - USA didn't recognise the sovereignty of the United Provinces of River Plate and didn't like this stealing boats stuff so they almost destroyed the place and gets Vernet to go away
12 - The United Provinces of River Plate dissolves and Argentina starts saying hi to the world.
13 - England sees this shit about vernet and USA saying "don't fuck with our seal fishing boats" and this Argentina stuff and decides to establish a military base there because after all, its a great place to have a base strategy wise.
14 - They arrive and kicked the Argentinian guys there because they had a much bigger force.\
15 - Argentina protested for a while eventually Rosas cut it off
16 - England wants to send a guy to see if there is potential for the place long term, Argentina flips out, even fire at the royal boat England had to send
17 - Argentina invades --- War --- Argentina loses
18 - Argentina still claims stuff

So this place 460km from Argentina to sum up was.
From no one
France
England
Spain - by force
Argentia/United bla bla River Plate - Vernet
England - by force
Argentina bitches for a while
War
England

First it was discovered, a nice port.
Then it was seals and fishing and a good strategy port
Then it was a good place to have a military base
Then this British researcher says that for them to be able to particularly explode the natural resources of the water surrounding they need a political settlement
War - England wins

Its a little more complex, I'm not even starting with all of the Argentinian history side or the different conflicts during that time between both countries.

But during all of the time England had it, they didn't give a shit about claims and they populate the place.
Now after all this time and a war won, of course the people there don't want to side with Argentina.
First, they are -mostly- people from England.
Second, probably they would be ostracised if they were to become Argentinian.
Third England is a much higher economically super power and good to have as an ally than Argentina

But the issue is if they have a say. Just because they have lived there after England finally has it after a period of colonization, it is a question at hand if its correct to take only into account their will.
Its pretty convenient, England populates the country, ignores all claims well known that Argentina couldn't do shit about it, which it was proven during the war.

And now they say "hey! our position is, we want what the people of that island wants!"

Pretty bad / innocent to believe.
They like their base, its a pollitcal loss to give it up, they like their resources, more now that there could be oil.

The exclusive economic zone as far as i know (i may be worng) is 200 nautical miles that's almost 400km (*1.8 something)
I read some comment saying it was like extremely far away or something.
Or that it was always from Britain, Argentina never had any people living there.
Or that England was there even before Argentina existed.

Theres a little more to it if you read, and a place that far away from England? populated during that time? thats not another poduct of their colonization process?
the Empire where the sun never sets? Come on..... now its all about the poor people of the falkland / malvinas islands.

I don't really care about who own the islands really, but please, this "we care about the people" stuff is pretty hilarious,
England cares because it was a good asset to have.
Its like saying Cristina cares because she wants true justice in this world.

Saying things like " 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."
makes me pretty disapointed.

ps: sorry for any grammar mistakes.

so, in essence you accuse the british government of employing that referendum to make themselves look good. Well, that's any government in a nutshell.

Argentina should really let this one go, they have nothing to win there but bad blood with UK...

Melliflue

United Kingdom1389 Posts

March 12 2013 12:10 GMT

#105

On March 12 2013 20:56 Orek wrote:

Show nested quote +

I think I made my point why what people living there feel doesn't matter, but still I don't think Argentine has a better ground.

I guess it comes down to how you want to 'solve' such problems. For me, the important thing is to do what is fair for the people who are alive today (and for people in the future). I am not interested in what if some people, who died a long time ago, did something wrong to some other people, who also died a long time ago. I care about justice for people, not for countries. As far as I am concerned, Argentina (or any other country) can not have suffered an injustice because it is not a sentient entity. The people of Argentina may suffer an injustice, but in the case of the Falklands none of those people are alive any more so nothing we can do could fix any injustice that may have been done.

What we can do is try to do what is right for people now. How would the people of Argentina benefit from having control of the Falklands? It would however make a big difference to the people on the Falkland Islands, which is why the UK leave it up to them to decide.

The people on the island have not done anything to deserve punishment. Why can't we leave them in peace how they want to live?

Resilient

United Kingdom1431 Posts

March 12 2013 12:15 GMT

#106

On March 12 2013 20:24 ZeRoX-45 wrote:
This debates are usualy stupid and clueless. For me Folklands are Argentina. England colonized so much and claim so much teritories. All this because they have resources (from their midern colonies) to do so with military or on the other way. Their politics are so much cynical and ambidextrous that I dont regard it as serious anymore. They recognized almost all "independent" countries that appeared (except Israel ofc because they created them country in some way), thus forcing UK together without referendum option for Scotland until now.

This is all about money and interest of course (fckng capitalism). Personally I hope Argentina will reclaim Folklands again and stabilize enough to separate from USA and England's terror which is spreaded in South America.

This is actually one of the most brutally retarded posts I've ever read. Not only do you know nothing about the history of the Falkland Islands, but you're just spreading typical anti-western bullshit for the sake of it.

Falkland Islands have _never_ belonged to Argentina. Their only argument is "uti possidetis juris" which is a very, very weak argument that claims sovereignty of land can be transferred upon independence. Although Spain had no settlements or business with the Falklands at that time.

The only possible argument that could be used is that it's "close" to Argentina.........and that's such a bullshit reason that half of Europe could claim sovereignty over each other then.

followZeRoX

Serbia1451 Posts

March 12 2013 12:30 GMT

#107

On March 12 2013 21:15 Resilient wrote:

Show nested quote +

Palestina never had independent state, so that means they have no ground to create it? English just militarized it and maxim you wrote is more retarded then my anti-western post.
This is why I said that debates like this is going nowhere, so I am off.

Nitrotech

United Kingdom22 Posts

March 12 2013 12:34 GMT

#108

Do you realise Argentina is the result of colonialism itself? What examples of "terror" from the USA and England in South America are you referring to? Do you know what happened in the Falklands war? Explain to me how Argentina invading disputed land is not colonialism itself?

Orek

1665 Posts

March 12 2013 12:35 GMT

#109

On March 12 2013 21:30 ZeRoX-45 wrote:

Show nested quote +

Please discuss Kosovo or Palestine somewhere else.
Edit:typo

crazyweasel

607 Posts

March 12 2013 12:38 GMT

#110

On March 12 2013 13:14 RCMDVA wrote:
$200 billion in oil reserves.

3,000 people.

$66,666,666.66 in reserves per person.

And that's what it's all about.

typical calculating culture in terms of money...

BernabusStarcraft2

Scotland112 Posts

March 12 2013 12:39 GMT

#111

the whole debate's pretty pointless. Now after the referendum, its basicly British, argentina can't do anything about it.

Resilient

United Kingdom1431 Posts

March 12 2013 12:40 GMT

#112

On March 12 2013 21:30 ZeRoX-45 wrote:

Show nested quote +

That's not relevant to the Falkland's dispute, feel free to make that point elsewhere. And debates like this don't go anywhere because there's nothing to debate. Argentina has as much right to the Falkland Islands as we do to claiming France or Belgium.

Palestine/Kosovo or anything else that pisses you off is not what's at stake here. And those situations actually have some merit for both sides.

sc4k

United Kingdom5454 Posts

March 12 2013 12:56 GMT

#113

I don't know about the Argentinians but the news over here is extremely biased towards the UK. It's kind of hard to be exposed to a rational argument from the Argentine point of view. I think a sensible solution to the conflict would be to give half of the territory to the Argies. Could be like a Cyprus thing. Or just give the Argies some sort of privilege to drill for oil there.

Targe

United Kingdom14103 Posts

March 12 2013 13:02 GMT

#114

Will Argentina give up already -.-
Even the people don't want to be a part of them.

WombaT

Northern Ireland26727 Posts

March 12 2013 13:05 GMT

#115

On March 12 2013 21:56 sc4k wrote:
I don't know about the Argentinians but the news over here is extremely biased towards the UK. It's kind of hard to be exposed to a rational argument from the Argentine point of view. I think a sensible solution to the conflict would be to give half of the territory to the Argies. Could be like a Cyprus thing. Or just give the Argies some sort of privilege to drill for oil there.

It's hard to be exposed to those arguments because they don't really exist. That said, our news coverage is bollocks.

National self-determination can cause issues in divided societies for sure, but in this case it's pretty overwhelming that the residents want to remain under the British influence. If it's this clear cut, I'm all for deferring to the people who actually live there, in every single case, I don't know why you wouldn't be.

To the guy spouting anti UK/USA slogans earlier, yeah I actually agree with what you're trying to say, I think, but maybe take a bit longer forming your posts and they'd come across as less naive/uninformed.

DDie

Brazil2369 Posts

March 12 2013 13:33 GMT

#116

On March 12 2013 14:39 KwarK wrote:

Show nested quote +

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.

Like the palestinians who where expelled from their land in 1948?

Anyways, between Argentina and UK, i would also choose UK.

RuskiPanda

United States2906 Posts

March 12 2013 13:42 GMT

#117

I don't understand why people keep bringing up Palestine. Just because they were wronged we have the precedent to also fuck over the Falklands?

Kukaracha

France1954 Posts

March 12 2013 13:47 GMT

#118

On March 12 2013 21:07 fabiano wrote:
Now look at Chile or Brazil which keeps healthy relations with everyone, from USA to Cuba. Sure we still have have so many problems of the 3rd world, but we are sloooowly getting out of there.

To be honest Brazil is doing very well, especially in defending their agricultural interests in negociating the FTAA, but Chile is the USA's bitch, wide open to free market agreements ever since the Chicago Boys set their feet back on their homeland.
We all know the price Mexico had to pay to enter the NAFTA.
"Poor Mexico, so far from God and so close to the United States."

On March 12 2013 21:05 Caller wrote:
when france cedes alsace-lorraine back to germany, the us cedes the pacific to mexico, and turkey surrenders all its territory back to greece, and somebody fixes up the balkans, only then can u complain about the current status of the falklands

The Alsace-Lorraine is french.

Jockmcplop

United Kingdom9842 Posts

March 12 2013 13:49 GMT

#119

I wish governments would stop forming their policy based on events that happened hundreds of years ago. Why not look to the future and form policy around that instead?

My country has done really really bad things in the past and never really got punished for them, which is incredibly unjust, but you have to take each case on its individual merits instead of just saying 'Britain is bad, because of stuff they did ages ago'.

This case is really pretty simple. there is no Argentinian case for the Falklands that even makes the slightest bit of sense. The only people that have ever lived there are British, the people who live there own it, and they want to be british: simple.

So hate on my country for what we have done in the past, i do, but don't make yourself look like an idiot by wading into arguments without looking at the basic facts first....