|
On March 13 2013 03:01 3Form wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Go read it again.
|
More than a few posters have remarked as to how little they understand your argument, striferawr, so simply telling people to "go read it again" is not very helpful. You are being incredibly unclear as to what specifically vindicates an Argentinian claim to the Falklands. If you are still supporting such an idea, perhaps a succinct, brief statement of evidence is in order?
|
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.
There are a lot of factors, mainly regarding to those dates.
Also as i said, is pretty innocent to go to an international tribune expecting anything while there isnt enough political pressure.
There were other times where UK didnt want to go to a settle, so i fail to see that is a valid point for UK.
And i think on the contrary, negotiation is the way to go while applying pressure. There is no other solution for Arg if they want the islands.
Those links are the start, there was a much bigger scale conflict also at hand, economically and socialy wise. From rairoads and trains to other treaties and the uprising of military dictatorships.
Its not as easy as "Arg refused 3 times to go to ICJ, they dont have much of a case"
But apparently people (specially the ones from the UK posting here) dont even care to read and keep saying the same over and over again.
Calling the wikipedia links bullshit with out even reading them or checking them its quite a remark.
International Law isnt that simple, i could also say "hey im a lawyer and im saying otherwise!" but i am not making any contribution by doing, neither isnt some one by saying "i talk to someone with a PhD in law! bullshit links!" like a user said before.
I dont know if they should or shouldnt be from Arg, but this stunt of referendum pretty much shows the mentality of a lot of people and lack of knowledge or even will to read information about it that may or may not contradict their views.
|
On March 12 2013 15:36 Rezudox wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Even that metaphor isn't accurate.
"We colonized it, its ours. Stop whining and blame your ancestors for being too weak to stop us."
That's the gist of it, and it's not just old world British policy. It was policy everywhere in the world where humans lived. The modern difference is that nobody today dares to go to war over territorial expansion due to the stigma created against it during World War II. The main method of expansion has therefore shifted to other domains, such as trade policy, economics, etc.
|
*raises hand* I've read the wikipedia articles, and I don't find there is any real claim for Argentina in them. I've pointed out a number of different reasons why the islands are and should remain British, and your response is 'go re-read the articles'. I'd suggest you're the one trying to dismiss anything that might contradict what you think.
|
United States42867 Posts
On March 13 2013 04:22 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 15:36 Rezudox wrote: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. Even that metaphor isn't accurate. "We colonized it, its ours. Stop whining and blame your ancestors for being too weak to stop us." That's the gist of it, and it's not just old world British policy. It was policy everywhere in the world where humans lived. The modern difference is that nobody today dares to go to war over territorial expansion due to the stigma created against it during World War II. The main method of expansion has therefore shifted to other domains, such as trade policy, economics, etc.
It's not even too weak to stop us. Argentina is a colonial power, just like England was. More like "too weak to claim it for yourselves". "Stop us" suggests it was Argentinian by default and there is zero basis for that claim.
|
On March 13 2013 04:29 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2013 04:22 Azarkon wrote:On March 12 2013 15:36 Rezudox wrote: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. Even that metaphor isn't accurate. "We colonized it, its ours. Stop whining and blame your ancestors for being too weak to stop us." That's the gist of it, and it's not just old world British policy. It was policy everywhere in the world where humans lived. The modern difference is that nobody today dares to go to war over territorial expansion due to the stigma created against it during World War II. The main method of expansion has therefore shifted to other domains, such as trade policy, economics, etc. It's not even too weak to stop us. Argentina is a colonial power, just like England was. More like "too weak to claim it for yourselves". "Stop us" suggests it was Argentinian by default and there is zero basis for that claim.
A better wording then:
'too weak to enforce your own claim.'
Due to the double connotation behind the word 'claim.'
|
On March 12 2013 23:07 Larkin wrote:
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.
That's a pointlessly naive point of view to take. Sure it sounds like a wonderful idea, but here in the real world there's nothing to suggest it'll ever work. If a nation surrenders its sovereignty and opens its borders, it succeeds not in bettering the world but in being overrun by someone else who will just re-purpose it according to whatever their specific agenda is. Humanity has to want to be united in peace and and in respect for the beliefs, rights, and quality of life of all for such a thing to work, and that's something I would be shocked to ever see. So long as greed and religious fanaticism exist, it's just a pointless pipe dream not even worth wasting a thought on.
|
I find it humorous how EVERY country wants to own EVERY other country. Why is everyone so territorial? Patriotism and greed will be the downfall of humanity! Just watch!
|
On March 13 2013 04:34 Blargh wrote:
I find it humorous how EVERY country wants to own EVERY other country. Why is everyone so territorial? Patriotism and greed will be the downfall of humanity! Just watch!
Patriotism and greed will be the downfall of humanity.
Patriotism and greed=humanity, therefore
Humanity will be the downfall of humanity.
Yes I think this follows.
|
I'm fine with the independence, but not them being British or Argentina. All claims fail somewhere or relies on "it's been like that since forever", so independence seems fair.
|
On March 13 2013 04:39 xN.07)MaK wrote:
I'm fine with the independence, but not them being British or Argentina. All claims fail somewhere or relies on "it's been like that since forever", so independence seems fair.
You think forced independence ought to override self-determination?
|
On March 13 2013 04:37 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2013 04:34 Blargh wrote:
I find it humorous how EVERY country wants to own EVERY other country. Why is everyone so territorial? Patriotism and greed will be the downfall of humanity! Just watch! Patriotism and greed will be the downfall of humanity. Patriotism and greed=humanity, therefore Humanity will be the downfall of humanity. Yes I think this follows.
Smart man!
But srs here.
Wouldn't it be better for whoever lives there to just decide what 'nationality' or whatever they want to be? If the people of a country are content with being part of some other country's territory, then what is the problem?
|
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.
I know you've said you think it is flawed but why do you think it is flawed? Why is "Take - settle - wait - vote" a flawed logic? I don't think it should be done, but it is something that should be stopped at stage 1 or 2. When stages 1 to 3 have already passed, how would you suggest solving the problem? Override the wishes of the people?
Also, you seem to have a different idea of "territory" to me and what it should mean, so could you explain what could make a territory legitimate? To take the example used by other people, should the US be considered illegitimate?
By the way, I won't respond to Striferawr for a similar reason. He/she seems to have a different idea to me about how such problems should be solved. I care about what is best for people now, so what happened 150 years ago is almost entirely irrelevant, unless somebody explains to me how the current people of Argentina are suffering now because of that. Please don't say "oil" because that is fairly recent and wasn't known about during the Falklands war, so it is not the reason for the invasion then.
|
On March 13 2013 04:43 Blargh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2013 04:37 farvacola wrote:On March 13 2013 04:34 Blargh wrote:
I find it humorous how EVERY country wants to own EVERY other country. Why is everyone so territorial? Patriotism and greed will be the downfall of humanity! Just watch! Patriotism and greed will be the downfall of humanity. Patriotism and greed=humanity, therefore Humanity will be the downfall of humanity. Yes I think this follows. Smart man! But srs here. Wouldn't it be better for whoever lives there to just decide what 'nationality' or whatever they want to be? If the people of a country are content with being part of some other country's territory, then what is the problem?
Of course it would be better for self-determined nationality, but there are a few reasons for why this is such a big deal:
1) Argentina feels slighted that there is a British colony in the pacific ocean, sort of near the mainland. I guess they feel because they are the closest country to the Falkland Islands, that they should have the best claim to the Falkland Islands. IT has been discussed to death in this thread why that is terrible reasoning, the main point being that if that logic follows, every country has a claim to every other smaller country it borders. Proximity is a bad excuse in this case.
2) Oil. There are ~3,000 people living on these islands, which obviously pales in comparison to the populations of both the UK and Argentina. It probably wouldn't be worth the fight, for either country, aside from pride reasons, if there weren't vast reserves of oil to be had for the nation that controls the islands.
Even though the population of the Falkland Islands has been predominantly British settlers for it's entire human history, Argentina feels like it was stolen from them and should be returned. But if we returned every colonized land to its previous owners, North and South Americans would have to crowd back into Europe and leave the western half of the world to the few remaining natives of those lands. It's a silly concept and makes no logical sense. The land belongs to the people living there now, and who have been living there for generations, and if they consider themselves British, then for all intents and purposes that's what they are; British.
|
Still awaiting a single Argentine argument that doesn't mention completely irrelevant things such as imperialism etc. If you mention this stuff your opinion is meaningless as they are just not relevant.
Lets just stew on this fact for a minute:
There have been British settlers in the Falkland Islands for longer than Argentina has been a country.
|
On March 13 2013 06:55 _SpiRaL_ wrote:
Still awaiting a single Argentine argument that doesn't mention completely irrelevant things such as imperialism etc. If you mention this stuff your opinion is meaningless as they are just not relevant.
Lets just stew on this fact for a minute:
There have been British settlers in the Falkland Islands for longer than Argentina has been a country.
There isn't a argument that they have with out irrelevant things such as imperialism. The main argument is that they inherit their claims from Spain, which means that The US should be able to claim Canada as we inherited it from England. That is the argument they are using.
|
So they are trying to get in on that imperialism, except on a hand-me-down basis?
|
On top of being descendants of brits and sharing their language and customs and so on... they're given the option to abandon their identity in order to join Argentina, of all places? Who would ever willingly inflict that upon themselves?
I'm glad that the residents of the Falklands get to voluntarily keep their allegiances, I'm glad that Argentina lost the Falklands war and consequently ejected their awful military government, and I'm glad that the current, populist government of Argentina does not get any satisfaction from this latest impasse that they are solely responsible for.
|
On March 13 2013 09:29 _SpiRaL_ wrote:
So they are trying to get in on that imperialism, except on a hand-me-down basis?
Pretty much, its more of a move to distract the public from their own issues, plus that liquid gold has helped re ignite the non issue
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
