| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
RCMDVA
United States708 Posts
Sail it right at Port Stanley. Dare the Brits to sink it. Once it gets there everyone disembarks and demands asylum. Or Hell.. just run the ship aground anywhere on the islands. After thinking about it...that might be Argentina's best & cheapest strategy. Brits sink the ship... they are war criminals. (Killing 5,000 unarmed civilians) Brits arrest the Argentines...then all the Argentines are political prisoners. | ||
|
Striferawr
Argentina10 Posts
On March 12 2013 20:37 Fenrax wrote: 1: It is called FALKlands, not Folklands. 2: Debates are clueless? It is obviously you who has no fucking clue about what you are saying so it would be better if you just said nothing at all. Just google the history of these Islands, it is not that complicated. This has nothing to do with capitalism, imperialism, military power or South Africa. ? it clearly has everything to do with Imperialism and military power. Miltary stablishment / fishing disputes / resources in an island so far away from britain is funny. They came when they realized it was going to be lost forever, they took it with a threat of War. Once they took it, they ignore all claims from the Argentinian government for a chunk of time untill an ongoing civil war on Argentina forced/was used?/w/e made a leader of a disputed Argentina came to an agreement with England. That guy lost. Time went by. What seems to be funny is that legal claims have anything to do with this. Most people on this thread have said either wrong things with quite a solid view on the subject or even express emotinal disgust about the situation if its not in their view. The decolonization process is a forced one, England wont return nothing untill it makes them look really bad or like other cases, keeping the territory represents more of a problem. Just "saying" Argentina has no reason to dispute or no interest doesnt make it true. As well as just saying Argentina has a weaker case. I feel that if someone would like to do comments like this should read a lot more history before. Its like saying chunks of Africa are rightfully European because when they took them they had people lived there and they wish to be from Holand/England rather than to be part of another country. Or if England didnt retreat their whole force from India and stayed and said, hey you keep everything but this little part, this guys live here for X amout of years! they like England, not this new India thing! There were people from Argentina living there as you can read in my summary and they were kicked off long time ago by force, then they repopulate the place with people from England. Doesnt matter that those people say if the place should have never be theirs. If it should, then the people opinion does matter Ergo, the debate shouldnt be about how the poor innocent people opinion on the falkland islands isnt taken into account, but if this Argentina can put enough pressure and show that this is another product of imperialism and have that place be more of a political thorn than a good strategic military base. But with the findings of oil, good luck with that. | ||
|
EchoZ
Japan5041 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
On March 13 2013 02:05 Striferawr wrote: ? it clearly has everything to do with Imperialism and military power. Miltary stablishment / fishing disputes / resources in an island so far away from britain is funny. They came when they realized it was going to be lost forever, they took it with a threat of War. Once they took it, they ignore all claims from the Argentinian government for a chunk of time untill an ongoing civil war on Argentina forced/was used?/w/e made a leader of a disputed Argentina came to an agreement with England. That guy lost. Time went by. What seems to be funny is that legal claims have anything to do with this. Most people on this thread have said either wrong things with quite a solid view on the subject or even express emotinal disgust about the situation if its not in their view. The decolonization process is a forced one, England wont return nothing untill it makes them look really bad or like other cases, keeping the territory represents more of a problem. Just "saying" Argentina has no reason to dispute or no interest doesnt make it true. As well as just saying Argentina has a weaker case. I feel that if someone would like to do comments like this should read a lot more history before. Its like saying chunks of Africa are rightfully European because when they took them they had people lived there and they wish to be from Holand/England rather than to be part of another country. Or if England didnt retreat their whole force from India and stayed and said, hey you keep everything but this little part, this guys live here for X amout of years! they like England, not this new India thing! There were people from Argentina living there as you can read in my summary and they were kicked off long time ago by force, then they repopulate the place with people from England. Doesnt matter that those people say if the place should have never be theirs. If it should, then the people opinion does matter Ergo, the debate shouldnt be about how the poor innocent people opinion on the falkland islands isnt taken into account, but if this Argentina can put enough pressure and show that this is another product of imperialism and have that place be more of a political thorn than a good strategic military base. But with the findings of oil, good luck with that. I realize English may be your second language, but can you try and rephrase the above? I can't exactly figure out what your argument is. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On March 13 2013 02:02 RCMDVA wrote: Find a cargo ship and load it with 5,000 Argentines. Sail it right at Port Stanley. Dare the Brits to sink it. Once it gets there everyone disembarks and demands asylum. Or Hell.. just run the ship aground anywhere on the islands. After thinking about it...that might be Argentina's best & cheapest strategy. Brits sink the ship... they are war criminals. (Killing 5,000 unarmed civilians) Brits arrest the Argentines...then all the Argentines are political prisoners. asylum denied. argentines are ordered to return to argentina or stay in prison indefinitely. A+ plan there! i'm sure the argentinians will be lined up to sign up for that ship. | ||
|
Evangelist
1246 Posts
On March 13 2013 02:02 RCMDVA wrote: Find a cargo ship and load it with 5,000 Argentines. Sail it right at Port Stanley. Dare the Brits to sink it. Once it gets there everyone disembarks and demands asylum. Or Hell.. just run the ship aground anywhere on the islands. After thinking about it...that might be Argentina's best & cheapest strategy. Brits sink the ship... they are war criminals. (Killing 5,000 unarmed civilians) Brits arrest the Argentines...then all the Argentines are political prisoners. No chance of that working. After claiming asylum, Britain would almost certainly deport them back to the mainland, having recognised that for the obvious ploy it is. Argentina have no strategy. There are no ploys. The referendum would almost certainly be restricted to the people that have lived there long enough to be worth their vote. The Falklands are British. The sooner people realise that and get on with their lives, the better. | ||
|
RCMDVA
United States708 Posts
On March 13 2013 02:10 dAPhREAk wrote: asylum denied. argentines are ordered to return to argentina or stay in prison indefinitely. A+ plan there! i'm sure the argentinians will be lined up to sign up for that ship. Castro did it to Miami. Put all your prisoners on the boats. | ||
|
CrimsonLotus
Colombia1123 Posts
There, issue resolved. | ||
|
Striferawr
Argentina10 Posts
i did a little summary taken from wikipedia a couple of pages ago, i was referring to that post mostly. People don't read or get informed in general, it took me less than 1 hour to read all the wikipedia pages related. I'm not saying they are 100% accurate, but that plus my somewhat understanding in my country history gives a little more perspective. People here are repeating false things over and over again with a really strong conviction. Either they were lied to, or they didn't care to find out for themselves and are a product of biased information. The islands were colonized as a military Establishment. When this happened, there was a dispute, as England had clearly a better navy and stronger force they kicked the guys that were there. The thing didn't DIE just there, there is something called history. You can look it up. From the first claims, Moreno, etc until Rosas. Argentina attacked when England was sending guys to check if the place was good or not economically wise. At that time, Argentina was under a Military regime (almost all South American Countries had this at one point, most of them supported by USA in some degree). Anyway long story short. If the claim is that the people living there were populated by England and the territory always was from Argentina. then logically, it doesn't matter what the people living there think. The territory cant be of someone just because they took it and then populated the area threatening war if someone says otherwise. On the other had, this is how almost every single territory was created and claimed in history. And in reality, England would only give up the islands if theres enough political pressure to do that, but with the findings if oil, that wont happen. | ||
|
3Form
United Kingdom389 Posts
On March 13 2013 02:05 Striferawr wrote: ? it clearly has everything to do with Imperialism and military power. Miltary stablishment / fishing disputes / resources in an island so far away from britain is funny. They came when they realized it was going to be lost forever, they took it with a threat of War. Once they took it, they ignore all claims from the Argentinian government for a chunk of time untill an ongoing civil war on Argentina forced/was used?/w/e made a leader of a disputed Argentina came to an agreement with England. That guy lost. Time went by. What seems to be funny is that legal claims have anything to do with this. Most people on this thread have said either wrong things with quite a solid view on the subject or even express emotinal disgust about the situation if its not in their view. The decolonization process is a forced one, England wont return nothing untill it makes them look really bad or like other cases, keeping the territory represents more of a problem. Just "saying" Argentina has no reason to dispute or no interest doesnt make it true. As well as just saying Argentina has a weaker case. I feel that if someone would like to do comments like this should read a lot more history before. Its like saying chunks of Africa are rightfully European because when they took them they had people lived there and they wish to be from Holand/England rather than to be part of another country. Or if England didnt retreat their whole force from India and stayed and said, hey you keep everything but this little part, this guys live here for X amout of years! they like England, not this new India thing! There were people from Argentina living there as you can read in my summary and they were kicked off long time ago by force, then they repopulate the place with people from England. Doesnt matter that those people say if the place should have never be theirs. If it should, then the people opinion does matter Ergo, the debate shouldnt be about how the poor innocent people opinion on the falkland islands isnt taken into account, but if this Argentina can put enough pressure and show that this is another product of imperialism and have that place be more of a political thorn than a good strategic military base. But with the findings of oil, good luck with that. All of South America is a product of imperialism, don't forget that. If you want to understand Imperialism then go and read how the Chinese long suffered at the hands of ALL the western powers. I swear you wouldn't care about those poxy islands if that was the alternative... If you want to accept the argument for Argentinian rights to the Falklands on the basis that there was a previous displaced SPANISH population, then you undermine the very right for Argentina to exist, as it is a product of colonialism. How many natives were displaced, killed or enslaved in order for your ancestors to settle eh? | ||
|
Striferawr
Argentina10 Posts
They were from the United government? of river plate, in spanish is Virreinato. And during that stay that government was dissolved and Argentina was "born". So during those days there were actually argentinians living there. Im not saying this is either enough or the only reason. But i am saying, im surprised at what other people say. "spanish guys OMG! what are you talking!" "Argentina didnt even exist!!!" "People in the falklands want to stay british!!" I really dont understand what China has anything to do with my caring. If someone suffered more or less makes not a single difference if the referedum is important or not. Can you please read the wikipedia article or the summary that i post or the quote that someone else gave from the article? Were are you guys coming with this information? the 8 o clock news? What im trying to imply is the sort of innocent approach of some people. This "we only care about the inhabitants" is pretty funny. Is just plain and simple not true. Also, its quite a pollitical Agenda to keep this going for some people here, and i wouldnt be that innocent and say "the argentinian leaders only care about the people and justice" | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On March 13 2013 02:28 RCMDVA wrote: Castro did it to Miami. Put all your prisoners on the boats. and that is relevant how? different political climates. | ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
On March 13 2013 02:02 RCMDVA wrote: Find a cargo ship and load it with 5,000 Argentines. Sail it right at Port Stanley. Dare the Brits to sink it. Once it gets there everyone disembarks and demands asylum. Or Hell.. just run the ship aground anywhere on the islands. After thinking about it...that might be Argentina's best & cheapest strategy. Brits sink the ship... they are war criminals. (Killing 5,000 unarmed civilians) Brits arrest the Argentines...then all the Argentines are political prisoners. Lol this is a brilliant idea! Dont let the argentinians hear it, they might just go for it. Got a deja vu feeling btw with this thread. Nearly exactly the same thread was on this forum like 1 year ago. | ||
|
JinDesu
United States3990 Posts
On March 13 2013 02:28 RCMDVA wrote: Castro did it to Miami. Put all your prisoners on the boats. "Those people were labeled "unadmissible" by the US government, and with time, through many negotiations, have been returned to Cuba." Per Wiki. | ||
|
3Form
United Kingdom389 Posts
On March 13 2013 02:44 Striferawr wrote: I didnt say there was a Spansh displaced population. They were from the United government? of river plate, in spanish is Virreinato. And during that stay that was dissolved and Argentina was born. So during those days there were actually argentinians living there. I really dont understand what China has anything to do with my caring. If someone suffered more or less makes not a single difference if the referedum is important or not. Can you please read the wikipedia article or the summary that i post or the quote that someone else gave from the article? Were are you guys coming with this information? the 8 o clock news? What im trying to imply is the sort of innocent approach of some people. This "we only care about the inhabitants" is pretty funny. Is just plain and simple not true. Also, its quite a pollitical Agenda to keep this going for some people here, and i wouldnt be that innocent and say "the only care about the people and justice" I talk about China because you keep bleating on about Imperialism when in fact your country was born of Western imperialism, you are the main beneficiaries of it - not victims... I personally don't give a crap about the islanders, I just don't see why "Argentina" is any more entitled to the islands than Britain is. Your crumby logic could give you claims to all of Chile for God's sake. There are far more glaring injustices in the world. A stronger case could be made for Gibraltar, Tangiers, Ceuta, Kalingrad, Guam ETC. Last time I read the wikipedia article it said that the British islanders were there before Argentina declared independence and that there had never be any hispanic settlers there previously. Maybe that'll help you understand why I'm not going to go trawling through articles that apparently change on a whim. | ||
|
Orek
1665 Posts
1. military force 2. negotiation 3. ICJ ruling Someone is unhappy whichever way is taken. If Argentina is so confident that their claim is legitimate, why refuse ICJ offer from UK side 3 times? Not that ICJ is perfect, but it is very rare that currently ruling side agrees yet complaining side declines. If negotiation doesn't work, then there is no place to go anyways. | ||
|
Sanctimonius
United Kingdom861 Posts
The only argument Argentina seems to have is 'the islands are Argentina, so there, and the Islanders don't matter.' Well, let's take that argument at face value, shall we? So every person of Spanish descent should move back to Spain. Give the New World back to the native populations (who did not live on the islands, but what the hey). Argentina did not exist, lets set up the Mayan and Inca empires once more, shall we? Hell, lets restore all historical claims to everybody! France belongs to England, as does Norway and Denmark, or to the Romans, or to anyone else with a historical claim. Or....we can acknowledge that the modern world is shaped by history, but what really matters is who lives where. Nations do change over time, but until the islands want to be part of Argentina, they are part of Britain, as they have stated categorically and repeatedly. @Orek They have refused because they know they don't really have a case. They know that any independent authority would rule the islanders have the right to self-determination, and even if they didn't 200 years of rule and defence would show the islands were British. It's a rallying cry, a tool for politicians to use when things are going badly at home. | ||
|
Evangelist
1246 Posts
On March 13 2013 03:13 Orek wrote: What I agree is that what islanders today think shouldn't be the deciding factor for this territorial dispute. I think I've made this point enough. Take - settle - wait - vote - win is such a flawed logic. On the other hand, I don't think Argentina's claim is flawless 100 vs 0. I read Striferawr's links and I now think UK's claim is not as solid as I used to think, but not enough to convince me to think Argentina is the rightful owner. This is not a math problem, so there is no perfectly right nor wrong answer. When disputed, the solutions are 1. military force 2. negotiation 3. ICJ ruling Someone is unhappy whichever way is taken. If Argentina is so confident that their claim is legitimate, why refuse ICJ offer from UK side 3 times? Not that ICJ is perfect, but it is very rare that currently ruling side agrees yet complaining side declines. If negotiation doesn't work, then there is no place to go anyways. Yeah... I'm just going to say that Strife's links are a pile of bullshit and call it at that. I've had a few discussions with legal students (one of whom is doing a PhD in this and is Southern Irish, might I add) and they basically affirmed that the Argentines have absolutely no legal grounds on which to contest the islands. One of them suggested that perhaps the French could contest a territorial claim but since they have never formally acknowledged it as a colony, they would have a hell of a job getting the ICJ to back it up. Truth be told, the islands belong to whoever economically developed them (Britain). Britain has already stated how they will allow the Falklands to leave and until those conditions are met (and let's be fair, they are good conditions, ie. substantial majority of islanders vote to join Argentina et al) then the Falklands will remain British. No amount of bleating from anyone else will change that status. | ||
|
Trowa127
United Kingdom1230 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. Haha nice Kwark, this pretty much sums it up. It's kind of a non-issue really, the Argentines are only getting so heated about it because they keep blowing up their economy and they need a side show I guess. | ||
|
Kong John
Denmark1020 Posts
As for my personal oppinion I like to believe that the world has and is chancing for the better. We live in a world were human rights has more influence than ever before. Delving on the past, talking about what our grand grandfathers did in a much harsher world ages ago seems very unconstructive and irrelevant to me. What the situation is now is much more important, not about ancient territorial claims. The Island is British today and the people on it are and want to stay British. But some might disagree with the above, but even if we disregard it, there is still no real reason for the Argentines to demand these Islands to be theirs. From what I understand from reading the Wikipedia article, there never were any natives on the island. If this was the case then they could make a claim. A weak claim, but I would be able to see their point. Since there aren’t though, it is just a contest between to imperialistic countries about who should have this pile of dirt, which I struggle to find any sympathy for. Not England or Argentina has any claim to these Islands, only the people living there now do. And if their choice is to be a English colony, then so be it. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Calm Dota 2 4526Bisu  1927Rain 1811Zeus 949Shuttle 816Mini 670BeSt 630EffOrt 602firebathero  406Light 390[ Show more ] Counter-Strike Other Games singsing2487 FrodaN2437 hiko846 B2W.Neo814 Lowko578 Mlord394 crisheroes318 uThermal276 DeMusliM238 Liquid`VortiX169 ArmadaUGS123 KnowMe40 Trikslyr33 CosmosSc2  28Organizations StarCraft 2 Other Games StarCraft: Brood War StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War |
|
Replay Cast
Escore
CrankTV Team League
WardiTV Summer Champion…
Big Brain Bouts
Soulspirit vs goblin
TriGGeR vs Bunny
OSC
Korean StarCraft League
Afreeca Starleague
RSL Revival
Serral vs SHIN
herO vs Solar
Online Event
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
