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.
(Alsace) was part of the Holy Roman Empire, and then was gradually annexed by France in the 17th century
From 1766 the whole Lorraine was a part of France
my point is that its stupid saying xyz owned the land then, give it back, and refusing to acknowledge the illegitimacy of many other land grabs.
How is what Argentina doing anything other than a modern day land-grab? since we defeated them last time they're just going about the whining route this time, I hope the government there doesn't cause more blood shed over these islands.
And yes England and the British have done many bad things in the past but also colonised many uninhabited parts of the world. Like, the Falkland islands. What should we do then, well now we have modern maps lets just re-distribute any remote islands to the nearest landmass? How would you feel if you lived there?
Alaska should be given to Canada then, yes? Which is why no one takes any notice over here about what the US governments policy is on the Falklands.
Where there has been a logical need to return territories based on large amounts of indigenous people and or the land was taken by force, the UK has returned most of these colonies to other countries and tried to in a way that benefits both the territory being handed back and the country that claims it. Examples would be Singapore and Hong Kong.
On March 12 2013 23:00 CursedRich wrote: How is what Argentina doing anything other than a modern day land-grab? since we defeated them last time they're just going about the whining route this time, I hope the government there doesn't cause more blood shed over these islands.
And yes England and the British have done many bad things in the past but also colonised many uninhabited parts of the world. Like, the Falkland islands. What should we do then, well now we have modern maps lets just re-distribute any remote islands to the nearest landmass? How would you feel if you lived there?
Alaska should be given to Canada then, yes?
well to be fair they have a history with that island it's not just ITS NEARER TO ME THAN YOU SO ITS MINE!
On March 12 2013 23:00 CursedRich wrote: How is what Argentina doing anything other than a modern day land-grab? since we defeated them last time they're just going about the whining route this time, I hope the government there doesn't cause more blood shed over these islands.
And yes England and the British have done many bad things in the past but also colonised many uninhabited parts of the world. Like, the Falkland islands. What should we do then, well now we have modern maps lets just re-distribute any remote islands to the nearest landmass? How would you feel if you lived there?
Alaska should be given to Canada then, yes?
well to be fair they have a history with that island it's not just ITS NEARER TO ME THAN YOU SO ITS MINE!
Spain has a claim then, yes? and one before Argentina?
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.
Not nihilist at all.
Nihilism:
1. The rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless. 2. Extreme skepticism, according to which nothing in the world has a real existence.
I think nations are restrictive to humanity. If we stopped trying to label ourselves under things like race, nationality and creed we would find it a lot easier to progress as a species. All it does is breed contempt and rivalry between people who are otherwise identical, just happened to be born in different coordinates.
John Lennon sums it up:
"Imagine there's no countries, it isn't hard to do Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too"
Wouldn't be a bad thing in my eyes. It'd certainly put stupid disputes like this to an end.
The "justice" argument is ridiculous. Face it, might makes right, and since the majority mostly has that on it`s side, we have democracy, so that the rullers can be replaced without blooshed.
On March 12 2013 22:55 Caller wrote: my point is that its stupid saying xyz owned the land then, give it back, and refusing to acknowledge the illegitimacy of many other land grabs.
On March 12 2013 23:00 CursedRich wrote: How is what Argentina doing anything other than a modern day land-grab? since we defeated them last time they're just going about the whining route this time, I hope the government there doesn't cause more blood shed over these islands.
And yes England and the British have done many bad things in the past but also colonised many uninhabited parts of the world. Like, the Falkland islands. What should we do then, well now we have modern maps lets just re-distribute any remote islands to the nearest landmass? How would you feel if you lived there?
Alaska should be given to Canada then, yes?
well to be fair they have a history with that island it's not just ITS NEARER TO ME THAN YOU SO ITS MINE!
Spain has a claim then, yes? and one before Argentina?
In my opinion they don't have a claim. just what i said, history...
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.
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.
It's pretty obvious you are the one who is completely clueless about this particular issue. You're only using it as an excuse to rant and rave about disputes half a world away that has nothing to do about this one. Nowhere in your illogical ramblings do I detect a hint of knowledge about the Americas in general and how the countries here came into being.
On March 12 2013 20:50 Calliopee wrote: I usually tend to disagree with KwarK and his opinions on politics/view of things but gotta say, I think he's been spot on so far in this thread. Still havn't seen a single reasonable argument as to why the Falklands should be Argentinian and if the people living there feel like they belong to the UK then by all means - who are we to judge?
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 can see your point, but I think you're taking it a bit too far with the example of forceful emigration. There are territorial disputes all over the world; Cyrpus, the clusterfuck that is Israel/Palestine, Germany after the fall of the iron curtain, Schleswig/Holstein with a danish minority living on german soil, the Falklands, almost every single border in Africa drawn by a ruler (not a ruler as a king but a ruler as in that thing you used in math or if you're an architect) And I think you have to look at how different each of these are being solved and even if they share certain similarities you've got to take each case and look at it as a unique situation. If there had been an argentinian majority or even a minority on the islands before the brits came, then yeah it would be a different discussion but thats not the case. And seeing how the people actually living there think they are british I don't see why theres even a discussion to be had.
What could have been really interesting though, was if they were given a third choice; so instead of choosing between british or argentinian, they could have been granted their own sovereign rule - now I think that would have made for something worth discussing.
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.
Like the palestinians who where expelled from their land in 1948?
Anyways, between Argentina and UK, i would also choose UK.
Yes, expelling Palestinians from their land is wrong for the same reason that Argentina invading the Falklands is wrong.
from wiki: "Controversy exists over the Falklands' original discovery and subsequent colonisation by Europeans. At various times there have been French, British, Spanish, and Argentine settlements." "The population, estimated at 2,841, primarily consists of native Falkland Islanders, the vast majority being of British descent. Other ethnicities include French, Gibraltarian, and Scandinavian."
The weakest point in Argentina's claim is that there weren't any indigenous population on the islands pre-European discovery. It was basically a no man's land no matter how close it looks to Argentina on a world map. Therefore, this is a very different case from other colonial territories where white dudes suddenly showed up and started to rule or expelled locals. The only ones British expelled seems to be those Argentinians who also had came to the islands only very recently. Since islands were by no means Argentina's traditional land, I don't know if it can be even called a colonialism. It's not like British broke a treaty or anything, either.
On March 12 2013 20:50 Calliopee wrote: I usually tend to disagree with KwarK and his opinions on politics/view of things but gotta say, I think he's been spot on so far in this thread. Still havn't seen a single reasonable argument as to why the Falklands should be Argentinian and if the people living there feel like they belong to the UK then by all means - who are we to judge?
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 can see your point, but I think you're taking it a bit too far with the example of forceful emigration. There are territorial disputes all over the world; Cyrpus, the clusterfuck that is Israel/Palestine, Germany after the fall of the iron curtain, Schleswig/Holstein with a danish minority living on german soil, the Falklands, almost every single border in Africa drawn by a ruler (not a ruler as a king but a ruler as in that thing you used in math or if you're an architect) And I think you have to look at how different each of these are being solved and even if they share certain similarities you've got to take each case and look at it as a unique situation. If there had been an argentinian majority or even a minority on the islands before the brits came, then yeah it would be a different discussion but thats not the case. And seeing how the people actually living there think they are british I don't see why theres even a discussion to be had.
What could have been really interesting though, was if they were given a third choice; so instead of choosing between british or argentinian, they could have been granted their own sovereign rule - now I think that would have made for something worth discussing.
I understand the other side of the argument as well. I'm just pointing out that "let current residents decide which side they want" is a very dangeous thought, especially when the other side's people were expelled at one point in recent history. Also, I believe that treaties and papers matter as much as, if not more than, today's residents' opinions. That said, no indigenous South American people was kicked out on Falkland/Malvinas, so it doesn't really matter in this particular case.
In any case, this UK vs Argentina argument is pretty one sided here. While I'm disagreeing with some opinions, it's not like I take Argentina's side. Their case is very hard to defend even if I wanted to play the devil's advocate.
The biggest misconception I see is between the status of the US and Canada versus the status of most of the rest of the Americas. Since the US and Canada ended up as rich nations, people rightly view them as Western nations that sprang from the descendants of European colonizers. Since the rest of the Americas are poor, many people view them differently. They should be viewed the same way.
Argentina is similar to the US and Canada. It's a Western nation that is primarily made up of the descendants of European colonizers. It just happens to be poor compared to their former colonizers. Their claim to the Falklands is weak. A lot of the arguments in Argentina's favor in these topics tend to be pleas for pity, portraying it as a fight between a colonizer and an oppressed native people. Imagine a theoretical dispute between the US and the UK with the US using that argument. Argentina's population is a lot whiter than the US's.
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.
Argentina has the same claim on the Falklands that we do on France and Germany.
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.
Who did they steal it from if it doesnt belong to anyone in the first place?
Before the Falklands War Main articles: History of the Falkland Islands and Timeline of the history of the Falkland Islands Controversy exists as to who first discovered the Falkland Islands, with competing Portuguese, Spanish and British claims from the 16th century.[13][14] While Amerindians from Patagonia could have visited the Falklands,[15] the islands were uninhabited when discovered by Europeans.[16] The first reliable sighting is usually attributed to the Dutch explorer Sebald de Weert in 1600, who named the archipelago the Sebald Islands, a name they bore on Dutch maps into the 19th century.[17]
In 1690, Captain John Strong of the Welfare en route to Puerto Deseado was driven off course and reached the Falkland Islands instead, landing at Bold Cove. Sailing between the two principal islands, he called the passage "Falkland Channel" (now Falkland Sound), after Anthony Cary, 5th Viscount Falkland, who as Commissioner of the Admiralty had financed the expedition. The island group takes its English name from this body of water.[18]
In 1764, French navigator and military commander Louis Antoine de Bougainville founded the first settlement on Berkeley Sound, in present-day Port Louis, East Falkland.[19] In 1765, British captain John Byron explored and claimed Saunders Island on West Falkland, where he named the harbour Port Egmont and a settlement was constructed in 1766.[20] Unaware of the French presence, Byron claimed the island group for King George III. Spain acquired the French colony in 1767, and placed it under a governor subordinate to the Buenos Aires colonial administration. In 1770, Spain attacked Port Egmont and expelled the British presence, bringing the two countries to the brink of war. War was avoided by a peace treaty and the British return to Port Egmont.[21]
In 1774, economic pressures leading up to the American Revolutionary War forced Great Britain to withdraw from many overseas settlements.[21][22] Upon withdrawal, the British left behind a plaque asserting Britain's continued claim. Spain maintained its governor until 1806 who, on his departure, left behind a plaque asserting Spanish claims. The remaining settlers were withdrawn in 1811.[21]
In 1820, storm damage forced the privateer Heroína to take shelter in the islands.[23] Her captain David Jewett raised the flag of the United Provinces of the River Plate and read a proclamation claiming the islands.[23] This became public knowledge in Buenos Aires nearly a year later after the proclamation was published in the Salem Gazette.[23] After several failures, Luis Vernet established a settlement in 1828 with authorisation from the Republic of Buenos Aires and from Great Britain.[24] In 1829, after asking for help from Buenos Aires, he was instead proclaimed Military and Civil Commander of the islands.[24] Additionally, Vernet asked the British to protect his settlement if they returned.[25]
View of Port Louis, probably 1838 or 1839.[26] A dispute over fishing and hunting rights resulted in a raid by the US warship USS Lexington in 1831.[27][28] The log of the Lexington reports only the destruction of arms and a powder store, but Vernet made a claim for compensation from the US Government stating that the settlement was destroyed.[27] (Compensation was rejected by the US Government of President Cleveland in 1885.) Lexington's Captain declared the islands "free from all government", the seven senior members of the settlement were arrested for piracy[29] and taken to Montevideo,[28] where they were released without charge on the orders of Commodore Rogers.[30]
In November 1832, Argentina sent Commander Mestivier as an interim commander to found a penal settlement, but he was killed in a mutiny after four days.[31] The following January, British forces returned and requested the Argentine garrison leave. Don Pinedo, captain of the ARA Sarandi and senior officer present, protested but ultimately complied. Vernet's settlement continued, with the Irishman William Dickson[32] tasked with raising the British flag for passing ships.[33][34] Vernet's deputy, Matthew Brisbane, returned and was encouraged by the British to continue the enterprise. The settlement continued until August 1833, when the leaders were killed in the so-called Gaucho murders. Subsequently, from 1834 the islands were governed as a British naval station until 1840 when the British Government decided to establish a permanent colony.[35]
Naval confrontation during the 1914 Battle of the Falkland Islands. Painting by William Lionel Wyllie. A new harbour was built in Stanley,[36] and the islands became a strategic point for navigation around Cape Horn. A World War I naval battle, the Battle of the Falkland Islands, took place in December 1914, with a British victory over the smaller Imperial German Asiatic Fleet.[37] During World War II, Stanley served as a Royal Navy station and serviced ships which took part in the 1939 Battle of the River Plate.[38]
Sovereignty over the islands again became an issue in the second half of the 20th century, when Argentina saw the creation of the United Nations as an opportunity to pursue its claim. Talks between British and Argentine foreign missions took place in the 1960s, but failed to come to any meaningful conclusion. A major sticking point in all the negotiations was that the inhabitants preferred that the islands remain British territory.[39]
A result of these talks was the establishment of the islands' first air link. In 1971, the Argentine state airline LADE began a service between Comodoro Rivadavia and Stanley. A temporary strip was followed by the construction of a permanent airfield and flights between Stanley and Comodoro Rivadavia continued until 1982.[40][41][42] Further agreements gave YPF, the Argentine national oil and gas company, a monopoly over the supply of the islands' energy needs.[43] The Times in its obituary of Rex Hunt states that it was generally accepted by the Foreign Office that when Hunt was appointed governor part of his brief was "to soften up the island's 1800 inhabitants to the idea that British sovereignty could not be taken as given in perpetuity". In his first dispatch back to the Foreign Office he wrote "There is no way we will convince these islanders that they will be better off as part of Argentina".[44]
If Argentina invades again, they'll get the same as they did last time - a good fucking slap. The people there are British and its simply unacceptable the ideal that Argentina will force them to be part of another country.
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.
We've got enough firepower on those islands right now that pretty much the only country that could take them from us would be the US. I know people make a song and dance about carrier groups and so on but the sheer size of the RAF base there means we could potentially get 10,000 assorted personnel there in about ten hours. The place is massive and it's home to four ground based Eurofighter Typhoons complete with air superiority signaller units and an entrenched SAM position together with a major airport runway designed for transatlantic flights.
That's the real reason the Argentines have never invaded again. They'd have to commit to a full invasion which they neither have the economy for nor do they have the firepower. It would also be unilaterally condemned. The US was happy to uhm and ah about them taking the Falklands when it was 500 Royal Marines and there was one casualty. They would not be so quiet when it was the entire Argentine navy and air force desperately losing a war of attrition against a heavily armed military base.
Hell, the bastards only owned the island for a grand total of two months and there are no go areas on the Falklands because they heavily minded random fields. There's even a mine clearing regiment still there twenty years later.
EPT
