In the past 2 days the islanders of the Falklands / Islas Malvinas, voted for which country they wanted to be part and it was win by a huge % for the British. More info in the link below.
Falklands referendum: Voters choose to remain UK territory.
The people of the Falkland Islands have voted overwhelmingly in favour of remaining a UK overseas territory.
Of 1,517 votes cast in the two-day referendum - on a turnout of more than 90% - 1,513 were in favour, while just three votes were against.
It follows pressure from Argentina over its claims to the islands, 31 years after the Falklands War with the UK.
The UK government welcomed the result and urged "all countries" to accept it and "support" the islanders.
There was a turnout of more than 90% from 1,672 British citizens eligible to vote in a population of about 2,900.
Dick Sawle, a member of the island's legislative assembly, said it was an "absolutely phenomenal result which will send out the strongest possible message to the rest of the world about our right to self-determination - a right that was fought for in 1982, and which we have honoured tonight."
'Big news'
Carolina Barros, editor of the Buenos Aires Herald, said the referendum result was "quite a blow and big news for any Argentine saying that the Malvinas islands belong to Argentina, or that the islanders living there are an implanted population".
"I don't think it's going to change the mind of the government," she said. "It might change the mind of the Argentines.
"Most of the Argentines think that the territory, the land, belongs to the Argentine map. But most of the Argentines, I think, think that the islanders are entitled to believe or feel themselves like the true inhabitants of the islands after almost nine generations."
Election observers from different countries oversaw the vote, including representatives of Chile and Mexico - despite an Argentine request for Latin American countries not to take part.
Argentine forces invaded the Falkland Islands on 2 April 1982. The garrison of the UK's Royal Marines was overwhelmed and other British South Atlantic territories including South Georgia were also seized.
In two months of fighting, 255 British and about 650 Argentine servicemen were killed, along with three Falklands civilians, before Argentine forces surrendered.
Two sides to a story
º Argentina says it inherited the islands from the Spanish crown in 1767 and the islands were seized by Britain in 1833.
º But Britain says it had long previously established a settlement there and never relinquished sovereignty.
º It says it has continuously inhabited and administered the islands since 1833.
On March 12 2013 13:07 kukarachaa wrote: Isn't most of population at this point are British or former British navy base personnel which would make any sort of referendum like that one silly?
Armed forces personnel are not allowed to vote if i understand properly, the people of the islands are offspring from islanders who settled in the 19th century.
Argentinians tend to disregard this type of information on the account of being "asking British people if they want to stay British or not" which is obviously biased.
I've always thought they're rightfully British, but I don't handle enough information to really argue for or against it.
Brittain did the same thing with all of Brazil's islands, it was a major push to gain control in the south atlantic, but we got our navy toghether and zerged every single island and sent those brits back home.
Later on we ended up paying all the debt portugal owed england, but at least we kept out islands.
I always tried to stay out of this debate, but the islanders themselves want to still remain an overseas colony of Britain, and in interviews I've read they consider themselves falklanders first and then british next. I guess my point is, they seem to have their own personal distinct identity, and what gives me as a British citizen of England any right to say otherwise, the same goes Argentinians who live on the main land.
Put it this way, if the island was undoubtedly a part of Argentinian sovereign and the inhabitants of the island wanted to be independent, would it be right to stop them? Me thinks not.
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.
Most of the debate boils down to Argentinians saying that the Islands are theirs, and neglecting all surveys that say that the islanders want to remain British. The British side is more like, we <3 your reserves, lets let the islanders speak for themselves because we know they would rather be backed by our government than Argentina's. The people have spoken, we are passed the point of "neo-colonialism" in the Falklands, at least in my opinion.
EDIT:
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.
From the POV of the Argentinians that want the Falklands to somehow go back to Argentina's hands, its all a matter of justince, the UK took the islands by force from Argentina way back in the day, they did a major push towards the south atlantic to secure strategic bases, and they stole islands from many countries, including Brazil and argentina.
Brazil took em back, but Argentina didnt (and couldnt afaik), the british promtly used that location as they intended, a strategic base in the south atlantic, it was not interesting for weak Argentina to attack the British for such a meaningless island back in the day.
Fast foward 100 years, and theres WWI and WWII and the feeling of entitlement towards the island grew, as the feeling of Britains power and moral claim to the island faded from the mind of the populace.
Obviously by then theres only brits living in the island, and the territory has effectively been colonized by them, even if it was stolen before it.
Fast foward a few more decades and you have govts discovering that the south atlantic coast is probably rich with oil, and suddenly acquiring the island becomes that much more important for argentina big oil insterest.
Then you have the Falklands war, and then argentina elects cristina which basically is a crazy bitch and shes ruining the country and trying to get all the monsters out of the closet to blame them for their failures, so she prefers to further delve in this lost cause (specially since they recently found lots of oil over there), in a desperate move because she basically doesnt have the competence to do something that would be actually usefull.
On March 12 2013 13:58 D10 wrote: From the POV of the Argentinians that want the Falklands to somehow go back to Argentina's hands, its all a matter of justince, the UK took the islands by force from Argentina way back in the day, they did a major push towards the south atlantic to secure strategic bases, and they stole islands from many countries, including Brazil and argentina.
Brazil took em back, but Argentina didnt (and couldnt afaik), the british promtly used that location as they intended, a strategic base in the south atlantic, it was not interesting for weak Argentina to attack the British for such a meaningless island back in the day.
Fast foward 100 years, and theres WWI and WWII and the feeling of entitlement towards the island grew, as the feeling of Britains power and moral claim to the island faded from the mind of the populace.
Obviously by then theres only brits living in the island, and the territory has effectively been colonized by them, even if it was stolen before it.
Fast foward a few more decades and you have govts discovering that the south atlantic coast is probably rich with oil, and suddenly acquiring the island becomes that much more important for argentina big oil insterest.
Then you have the Falklands war, and then argentina elects cristina which basically is a crazy bitch and shes ruining the country and trying to get all the monsters out of the closet to blame them for their failures, so she prefers to further delve in this lost cause (specially since they recently found lots of oil over there), in a desperate move because she basically doesnt have the competence to do something that would be actually usefull.
Its that bad, I cry for you argentina.
The Falklands war was before any oil was discovered, i believe the oil discovery has only been in the past few years.
On March 12 2013 13:21 Kerotan wrote: I always tried to stay out of this debate, but the islanders themselves want to still remain an overseas colony of Britain, and in interviews I've read they consider themselves falklanders first and then british next. I guess my point is, they seem to have their own personal distinct identity, and what gives me as a British citizen of England any right to say otherwise, the same goes Argentinians who live on the main land.
Put it this way, if the island was undoubtedly a part of Argentinian sovereign and the inhabitants of the island wanted to be independent, would it be right to stop them? Me thinks not.
Ok. Imagine this situation. You come home one night to find there are a group of people you don't know in your house. You want them to leave, they want to stay.
So they have a vote. The majority vote for staying in your house.
On March 12 2013 13:14 mordk wrote: Argentinians tend to disregard this type of information on the account of being "asking British people if they want to stay British or not" which is obviously biased.
I've always thought they're rightfully British, but I don't handle enough information to really argue for or against it.
As biased as Britain claiming a piece of mainland Argentina as a part of Britain and then, when the Argentinians living their protested, dismissing it as "naturally the Argentinians think they should live in Argentina". Their claim to it is based upon having a country near it which, as we tried with Ireland and Hitler tried with the entire world, isn't actually a very good claim when the people there already have a country. It was settled hundreds of years ago, it belongs to the people living there and wouldn't even be a contentious issue if the junta hadn't tried to stir up some nationalist feeling by invading it. It sucks that some conscripts lost their lives invading a foreign country and nobody wants them to have died for nothing but unfortunately they did.
On March 12 2013 13:21 Kerotan wrote: I always tried to stay out of this debate, but the islanders themselves want to still remain an overseas colony of Britain, and in interviews I've read they consider themselves falklanders first and then british next. I guess my point is, they seem to have their own personal distinct identity, and what gives me as a British citizen of England any right to say otherwise, the same goes Argentinians who live on the main land.
Put it this way, if the island was undoubtedly a part of Argentinian sovereign and the inhabitants of the island wanted to be independent, would it be right to stop them? Me thinks not.
Ok. Imagine this situation. You come home one night to find there are a group of people you don't know in your house. You want them to leave, they want to stay.
So they have a vote. The majority vote for staying in your house and so they all stay.
Looks legit.
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.
It was pretty much a foregone conclusion. Nobody expected a pro-Argentina result, and the islanders have confirmed their wishes once more. They want to remain British.
The most annoying thing about the whole thing, honestly, is the constant claims of colonialism from Argentinian politicians. Apparently, claiming the islands when we've owned them for centuries (and owned them since before Argentina existed as a country...) and the islanders themselves want to be British is colonial. Ironically Argentina is the one behaving colonial when they are demanding the islands regardless of the wishes of the islanders. Sadly this irony seems lost on the vast majority of the country.
It will probably solve nothing and Argentina will maintain their claims, but hopefully it will keep the UN on our side during this rigmarole. Hopefully Christina will stop rabble-rousing and actually get on with running the country.
Part of me believes that someone, somewhere is just artificially inflating offshore oil 'reserves' or conflating the total amount of oil under the seabed with 'recoverable reserves'--e.g. the amount of oil available. I felt it when the USGS was pushing up the value of South China Sea oil and gas reserves (400 billion barrels--really?) and I feel it today. I'd be inclined to call it a conspiracy, but I can't see in my head who would benefit from triggering multiple naval arms races across the globe, given how closely naval strength is linked with the ability to disable opposing C4ISR systems and hence risk nuclear war.
Basically no Argentinians have ever lived on the island. They have literally no claim beyond "Spain used to claim them and we're kinda like Spain, do you guys even speak Spanish?" and "look at a map, we're kinda close".
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.
Oh well I don't think anyone was expecting anything different. Luckily from what I have heard the Argentine Navy is rather second rate so I doubt they would be foolish enough to attack again with their navy falling apart.
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.
On March 12 2013 14:39 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote: Oh well I don't think anyone was expecting anything different. Luckily from what I have heard the Argentine Navy is rather second rate so I doubt they would be foolish enough to attack again with their navy falling apart.
They have stated that they do not intend to attempt to use military force to subject the British citizens of the Falklands to foreign (Argentine) rule again but that they still feel that they are theirs and want to regain them through diplomacy. The British stance is that we are perfectly happy for them to go to Argentina if that is what the people want. So, given no body able to overrule national governments nor any international body that thinks self determination is not the source of national rights, the matter is settled. Argentina might not like it but it is settled.
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.
This can just as easily read as "That's the argument that justifies the very existence of English colonial settlements in North America that would go on to become the United States." We're in this bed together.
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.
So, at an imaginary disputed islands 1. Country A breaks every treaty and international law and invade the islands that Country B owns 2. Country A wins and expel all native citizens of Country B 3. immigrate people from Country A 4. refuse to negotiate for 200 years or something 5. boom, everyone on the islands wants to stay in Country A
To be fair, that's how territories have been established in history, but I don't think that should be the way any more. It is so unfair for Country B although no one on the island 200 years later complains about it. That's why I think the referendum is not that important. Falkland islands are British territory IMO, but not for this referendum or people's support.
I have no idea what your point is farva. My point is that the people born in a land, living in that land and working that land have intangible rights to it that exist in natural law.
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.
So, at an imaginary disputed islands 1. Country A breaks every treaty and international law and invade the islands that Country B owns 2. Country A wins and expel all native citizens of Country B 3. immigrate people from Country A 4. refuse to negotiate for 200 years or something 5. boom, everyone on the islands wants to stay in Country A
To be fair, that's how territories have been established in history, but I don't think that should be the way any more. It is so unfair for Country B although no one on the island 200 years later complains about it. That's why I think the referendum is not that important. Falkland islands are British territory IMO, but not for this referendum or people's support.
Yeah, by step 5 all the people who did wrongs in step 1 and 2 are dead as are all the people wronged in step 1 and 2. All you have left are innocent people by step 5 who were born and live on the island. People exist independently of their national identity, no wrong is righted by attacking them. Going "some people from A had stuff taken from them by B so we're going to take from the descendants of B and give to the descendants of A and call it justice" is insane. What you're doing is in one sentence denouncing the act of taking from some people and giving to another and calling for it to happen some more. They're just people who want to live their lives under their own laws and customs, when it comes down to it it's that simple. Also in the case of the Falklands 2 didn't actually happen and the time 1 happened was when Argentina broke international law to invade the islands that Britain owned so that doesn't count against Britain either.
On March 12 2013 13:58 D10 wrote: From the POV of the Argentinians that want the Falklands to somehow go back to Argentina's hands, its all a matter of justince, the UK took the islands by force from Argentina way back in the day, they did a major push towards the south atlantic to secure strategic bases, and they stole islands from many countries, including Brazil and argentina.
Brazil took em back, but Argentina didnt (and couldnt afaik), the british promtly used that location as they intended, a strategic base in the south atlantic, it was not interesting for weak Argentina to attack the British for such a meaningless island back in the day.
Fast foward 100 years, and theres WWI and WWII and the feeling of entitlement towards the island grew, as the feeling of Britains power and moral claim to the island faded from the mind of the populace.
Obviously by then theres only brits living in the island, and the territory has effectively been colonized by them, even if it was stolen before it.
Fast foward a few more decades and you have govts discovering that the south atlantic coast is probably rich with oil, and suddenly acquiring the island becomes that much more important for argentina big oil insterest.
Then you have the Falklands war, and then argentina elects cristina which basically is a crazy bitch and shes ruining the country and trying to get all the monsters out of the closet to blame them for their failures, so she prefers to further delve in this lost cause (specially since they recently found lots of oil over there), in a desperate move because she basically doesnt have the competence to do something that would be actually usefull.
Its that bad, I cry for you argentina.
The Falklands war was before any oil was discovered, i believe the oil discovery has only been in the past few years.
I didnt make myself clear, it was circulating amognst the south american hotshots that geologists speculated (with many good facts backing their speculation) that there were lots of oil in the atlantican coast, since the 60's.
Argentina suspected there might be oil or at the very least, oil related goodies by acquiring the Falklands
On March 12 2013 15:02 KwarK wrote: I have no idea what your point is farva. My point is that the people born in a land, living in that land and working that land have intangible rights to it that exist in natural law.
On March 12 2013 15:02 KwarK wrote: I have no idea what your point is farva. My point is that the people born in a land, living in that land and working that land have intangible rights to it that exist in natural law.
Natural law, you say?
Care to refute it (although you might want to bear in mind your own justification for being in the US (unless you're an Indian in which case fuck those whities)).
On March 12 2013 15:02 KwarK wrote: I have no idea what your point is farva. My point is that the people born in a land, living in that land and working that land have intangible rights to it that exist in natural law.
Ok, well that I can agree with, as long as by "natural law" you mean something more like "natural law that we agree upon", or else I can simply point to the natural law inherent in killing and removing those who occupy land that you wish to live upon, as both humans and animals have been wont to do throughout history.
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.
So, at an imaginary disputed islands 1. Country A breaks every treaty and international law and invade the islands that Country B owns 2. Country A wins and expel all native citizens of Country B 3. immigrate people from Country A 4. refuse to negotiate for 200 years or something 5. boom, everyone on the islands wants to stay in Country A
To be fair, that's how territories have been established in history, but I don't think that should be the way any more. It is so unfair for Country B although no one on the island 200 years later complains about it. That's why I think the referendum is not that important. Falkland islands are British territory IMO, but not for this referendum or people's support.
Yeah, by step 5 all the people who did wrongs in step 1 and 2 are dead as are all the people wronged in step 1 and 2. All you have left are innocent people by step 5 who were born and live on the island. People exist independently of their national identity, no wrong is righted by attacking them. Going "some people from A had stuff taken from them by B so we're going to take from the descendants of B and give to the descendants of A and call it justice" is insane. What you're doing is in one sentence denouncing the act of taking from some people and giving to another and calling for it to happen some more. Also in the case of the Falklands 2 didn't actually happen and the time 1 happened was when Argentina broke international law to invade the islands that Britain owned so that doesn't count against Britain either.
Yes but its not like you want to give Argentina a % of the oil as well.
Theres much more on the line than the simple confort of 5000 people, its billions in oil, and argentina has a historical point.
Lets say I agree and I dont think the citizens of Falklands should be harassed by Argentina into abandoning their Brittish citizenship and colony status, that would just be wrong, and I care about justice.
But England stole the Falklands from Argentina, and deliberately set a plan in motion in order for the ones capable of being charged of any guilt to be long dead long before anyone with weight in national politics gave any serious attention over the matter, leaving only a bunch of innocent colonists that masterfully claim the land to england, and their government and corporations.
Shouldnt Argentina have a bit of a compensation ? What right to the Falklands does Brittain have after basically stealing it thro sheer force, an island thousands of miles far from its territory and on the door of Argentina, it does nothing but showoff the remains of an imperialist mindset that is no longer fit for the world.
Either way, the citizens of Falklands are better of in the hands of the Britts, Cristina is .. uhgh
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.
So, at an imaginary disputed islands 1. Country A breaks every treaty and international law and invade the islands that Country B owns 2. Country A wins and expel all native citizens of Country B 3. immigrate people from Country A 4. refuse to negotiate for 200 years or something 5. boom, everyone on the islands wants to stay in Country A
To be fair, that's how territories have been established in history, but I don't think that should be the way any more. It is so unfair for Country B although no one on the island 200 years later complains about it. That's why I think the referendum is not that important. Falkland islands are British territory IMO, but not for this referendum or people's support.
Yeah, by step 5 all the people who did wrongs in step 1 and 2 are dead as are all the people wronged in step 1 and 2. All you have left are innocent people by step 5 who were born and live on the island. People exist independently of their national identity, no wrong is righted by attacking them. Going "some people from A had stuff taken from them by B so we're going to take from the descendants of B and give to the descendants of A and call it justice" is insane. What you're doing is in one sentence denouncing the act of taking from some people and giving to another and calling for it to happen some more. Also in the case of the Falklands 2 didn't actually happen and the time 1 happened was when Argentina broke international law to invade the islands that Britain owned so that doesn't count against Britain either.
Yes but its not like you want to give Argentina a % of the oil as well.
Theres much more on the line than the simple confort of 5000 people, its billions in oil, and argentina has a historical point.
Lets say I agree and I dont think the citizens of Falklands should be harassed by Argentina into abandoning their Brittish citizenship and colony status, that would just be wrong, and I care about justice.
But England stole the Falklands from Argentina, and deliberately set a plan in motion in order for the ones capable of being charged of any guilt to be long dead long before anyone with weight in national politics gave any serious attention over the matter, leaving only a bunch of innocent colonists that masterfully claim the land to england, and their government and corporations.
Shouldnt Argentina have a bit of a compensation ? What right to the Falklands does Brittain have after basically stealing it thro sheer force, an island thousands of miles far from its territory and on the door of Argentina, it does nothing but showoff the remains of an imperialist mindset that is no longer fit for the world.
Either way, the citizens of Falklands are better of in the hands of the Britts, Cristina is .. uhgh
We never stole it, Argentina never owned it they claimed it and then they invaded our territory in 1982 and we reclaimed it.
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.
So, at an imaginary disputed islands 1. Country A breaks every treaty and international law and invade the islands that Country B owns 2. Country A wins and expel all native citizens of Country B 3. immigrate people from Country A 4. refuse to negotiate for 200 years or something 5. boom, everyone on the islands wants to stay in Country A
To be fair, that's how territories have been established in history, but I don't think that should be the way any more. It is so unfair for Country B although no one on the island 200 years later complains about it. That's why I think the referendum is not that important. Falkland islands are British territory IMO, but not for this referendum or people's support.
Yeah, by step 5 all the people who did wrongs in step 1 and 2 are dead as are all the people wronged in step 1 and 2. All you have left are innocent people by step 5 who were born and live on the island. People exist independently of their national identity, no wrong is righted by attacking them. Going "some people from A had stuff taken from them by B so we're going to take from the descendants of B and give to the descendants of A and call it justice" is insane. What you're doing is in one sentence denouncing the act of taking from some people and giving to another and calling for it to happen some more. Also in the case of the Falklands 2 didn't actually happen and the time 1 happened was when Argentina broke international law to invade the islands that Britain owned so that doesn't count against Britain either.
Yes but its not like you want to give Argentina a % of the oil as well.
Theres much more on the line than the simple confort of 5000 people, its billions in oil, and argentina has a historical point.
Lets say I agree and I dont think the citizens of Falklands should be harassed by Argentina into abandoning their Brittish citizenship and colony status, that would just be wrong, and I care about justice.
But England stole the Falklands from Argentina, and deliberately set a plan in motion in order for the ones capable of being charged of any guilt to be long dead long before anyone with weight in national politics gave any serious attention over the matter, leaving only a bunch of innocent colonists that masterfully claim the land to england, and their government and corporations.
Shouldnt Argentina have a bit of a compensation ? What right to the Falklands does Brittain have after basically stealing it thro sheer force, an island thousands of miles far from its territory and on the door of Argentina, it does nothing but showoff the remains of an imperialist mindset that is no longer fit for the world.
Either way, the citizens of Falklands are better of in the hands of the Britts, Cristina is .. uhgh
No Argentinians ever lived there. It's not in the Argentinian territorial waters. Why would we ever want to give them a % of the wealth of the place we now have to pay a lot to defend because given the chance they tried to invade and steal it? They're lucky they don't have to pay indemnities after their flagrant, illegal and unjustifiable land grab in the Falklands War. It's nowhere near Argentina. They're the closest place but the South Atlantic is pretty big.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is basically Argentina's argument, too, only it wasn't even their flag, but Spain's. Maybe we should give them Florida too.
On March 12 2013 13:21 Kerotan wrote: I always tried to stay out of this debate, but the islanders themselves want to still remain an overseas colony of Britain, and in interviews I've read they consider themselves falklanders first and then british next. I guess my point is, they seem to have their own personal distinct identity, and what gives me as a British citizen of England any right to say otherwise, the same goes Argentinians who live on the main land.
Put it this way, if the island was undoubtedly a part of Argentinian sovereign and the inhabitants of the island wanted to be independent, would it be right to stop them? Me thinks not.
Ok. Imagine this situation. You come home one night to find there are a group of people you don't know in your house. You want them to leave, they want to stay.
So they have a vote. The majority vote for staying in your house.
Looks legit.
For that metaphor to work there would have had to have been Argentinian citizens living on that island at one point.
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.
On March 12 2013 15:38 Zaros wrote: How about self determination of peoples.
I refer you to my first post in this thread.
Your first post was nonsensical and completely irrelevant to the issue. Firstly you characterise it as an Argentinian house, which it never was (people live in houses, nobody lived on the islands), then you say this was a sudden problem (nine generations too sudden for you?) and then you add that you're being displaced by their presence in your house which makes no sense at all because no Argentines have ever lived there. It was a really bad metaphor because it failed to describe the situation or the issue at hand in any way. The closest to relevancy it came was when it made the implicit point that a bunch of people showing up where some other people already live and forcefully staying there is wrong but if you think that is a point against the British and for the Argentines then you're delusional.
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?
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.
No. They. Didn't.
Someone has to own the land for it to be stolen. The first and only native population of the Falklands have always been British.
People keep saying the Falklands were Argentinian. Could you please show us the Argentinians that were living on the islands when Britain claimed them? Or why they suddenly think we should give them these islands after two centuries of continuous British rule? Why the generations of Falklanders who are and were British no longer matter?
Argentina didn't exist as a country when Britain took the islands. This is a fact that is ignored by those who claim the islands for Argentina. Argentina came into existence after the Falklands were British. I'm not sure how else I can say it. The Falklands have been British longer than Argentina has been Argentinian.
On March 12 2013 15:47 KwarK wrote: Someone has to own the land for it to be stolen. The first and only native population of the Falklands have always been British.
Ah yes, but the Treaty of Tordesillas in 1494 clearly puts the Falklands in the half of the globe claimed by Spain. That means that any nation in any way related to Spain can claim anything west of the middle of the Atlantic, regardless of who lives there now.
On March 12 2013 15:47 KwarK wrote: Someone has to own the land for it to be stolen. The first and only native population of the Falklands have always been British.
I have no interest in furthering this discussion.
Believe what you will.
Oddly enough I didn't actually think that anybody anywhere could actually believe the Argentinian case for the Falklands (Spain used to claim them, we inherited that claim). I honestly thought it was just something Argentinian politicians went on about to keep people thinking about some relatively barren rocks hundreds of miles away and not the glaring problems at home. I am genuinely surprised to be proven wrong on this, surprised and disappointed.
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.
So, at an imaginary disputed islands 1. Country A breaks every treaty and international law and invade the islands that Country B owns 2. Country A wins and expel all native citizens of Country B 3. immigrate people from Country A 4. refuse to negotiate for 200 years or something 5. boom, everyone on the islands wants to stay in Country A
To be fair, that's how territories have been established in history, but I don't think that should be the way any more. It is so unfair for Country B although no one on the island 200 years later complains about it. That's why I think the referendum is not that important. Falkland islands are British territory IMO, but not for this referendum or people's support.
Yeah, by step 5 all the people who did wrongs in step 1 and 2 are dead as are all the people wronged in step 1 and 2. All you have left are innocent people by step 5 who were born and live on the island. People exist independently of their national identity, no wrong is righted by attacking them. Going "some people from A had stuff taken from them by B so we're going to take from the descendants of B and give to the descendants of A and call it justice" is insane. What you're doing is in one sentence denouncing the act of taking from some people and giving to another and calling for it to happen some more. They're just people who want to live their lives under their own laws and customs, when it comes down to it it's that simple. Also in the case of the Falklands 2 didn't actually happen and the time 1 happened was when Argentina broke international law to invade the islands that Britain owned so that doesn't count against Britain either.
I'm not saying that this is the case in Falkland islands. I'm just having a problem with this idea that referendum matters when it comes to territorial disputes. Falkland islands are British territory AFAIK even if the referendum somehow supported Argentina unless U.K. willingly decided to hand over. Paper and treaty matters more than what current residents say. Or at least, the world is better off moving towards that way. Otherwise, as I said, China or India can push their emigration policy and legally colonize many parts of the world with their sheer number of population. Or, whichever country that has no legitimate sovereigntyover a territory today can ignore all complaints of the world and wait for generations until it becomes theirs.
On March 12 2013 15:56 KwarK wrote: Ah yes, but the Treaty of Tordesillas in 1494 clearly puts the Falklands in the half of the globe claimed by Spain.
Crap, does this mean I have to learn spanish? ¿cómo se dice "not only no but hell no" en español?
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.
So, at an imaginary disputed islands 1. Country A breaks every treaty and international law and invade the islands that Country B owns 2. Country A wins and expel all native citizens of Country B 3. immigrate people from Country A 4. refuse to negotiate for 200 years or something 5. boom, everyone on the islands wants to stay in Country A
To be fair, that's how territories have been established in history, but I don't think that should be the way any more. It is so unfair for Country B although no one on the island 200 years later complains about it. That's why I think the referendum is not that important. Falkland islands are British territory IMO, but not for this referendum or people's support.
Yeah, by step 5 all the people who did wrongs in step 1 and 2 are dead as are all the people wronged in step 1 and 2. All you have left are innocent people by step 5 who were born and live on the island. People exist independently of their national identity, no wrong is righted by attacking them. Going "some people from A had stuff taken from them by B so we're going to take from the descendants of B and give to the descendants of A and call it justice" is insane. What you're doing is in one sentence denouncing the act of taking from some people and giving to another and calling for it to happen some more. They're just people who want to live their lives under their own laws and customs, when it comes down to it it's that simple. Also in the case of the Falklands 2 didn't actually happen and the time 1 happened was when Argentina broke international law to invade the islands that Britain owned so that doesn't count against Britain either.
I'm not saying that this is the case in Falkland islands. I'm just having a problem with this idea that referendum matters when it comes to territorial disputes. Falkland islands are British territory AFAIK even if the referendum somehow supported Argentina unless U.K. willingly decided to hand over. Paper and treaty matters more than what current residents say. Or at least, the world is better off moving towards that way. Otherwise, as I said, China or India can push their emigration policy and legally colonize many parts of the world with their sheer number of population. Or, whichever country that has no legitimate sovereigntyover a territory today can ignore all complaints of the world and wait for generations until it becomes theirs.
Forceful emigration is called invasion. China or India could hypothetically invade other countries but when they do that you're allowed to shoot at the people they send. Otherwise you can simply turn them around at the border. Also the paper in question here is worthless. Spain claimed most of the world as theirs, these were islands that were landed on by people from all European nations (never by natives from Argentina though) for resupplying their ships. Each time they'd be claimed but no permanent population was settled there. They were claimed at different times by the French, British and Spanish with the British claim dating to 1765, a full fifty years before the creation of Argentina. The Argentine claim is based on the inherited Spanish claim, which was one claim among many 250 years ago when people were just claiming any old rock they could. It had very little relevance then and absolutely no relevance now regarding an island full of people who were born there.
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?
Kwark is pretty much spot on to this. Argentina has no right whatsoever on the Falkland Islands. The pro Argentina arguments in this discussion are either completely uninformed "British were bad during colonialism and this somewhat related" or Argentinian nationalistic bullshit.
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.
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.
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?
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 16:23 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 =/
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 16:44 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 16:44 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 16:44 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.
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 14:33 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 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.
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 16:44 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 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 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 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
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.
Do you think that UK government (or any other, really) would just get rid of the place with this amount of natural resources? I sincerely doubt that, no matter what official position is as of now.
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.
Do you think that UK government (or any other, really) would just get rid of the place with this amount of natural resources? I sincerely doubt that, no matter what official position is as of now.
We released a quarter of the globe into independent states why not these islands if they wanted to?
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.
@Striferawr This might all be true... But the people living there want to be british and Argentinia has no strong claim on it either way so, "just deal with it?". And what would you like the British to say? "Fuck the people, ressources rawr!" just to be perfectly "honest"? It's not that easy, it's for sure not "only" the people there but just disregarding this part of the issue is just as, if not more, wrong.
Also the distance argument. I guess culture plays big role into this, in Europe ~500km is pretty far, therefore this does not even sound like a real argument to me... 500km... 1000km... Who cares.
Btw: Where would you stand on this issue if the Falklands would be an independant nation? Would it still "belong" to argentinia?
Argentina is a sparsely populated country with vast natural resources, I am convinced it could be flourishing if not for misgovernment and corruption. But Argentinian problems will hardly be solved by adding a few barren islands, oil or no oil.
Let's face it, the Argentinian case for the islands is very weak and Argentinians still brooding over this should really focus on more important matters...
From a European perspective this dispute is absurd. 200 years ago Germany didn't even exist as a nation, if countries claimed territory they held that long ago regardless of the current situation then Europe would be in constant turmoil.
There is no territory on Earth that was not "stolen" at some point, in fact the British settlers can make a better claim than most in this case.
Problem is, this means nothing to Argentinian government who clearly think the island and it's inhabitants are Argentinian not Brittish. I am very proud of the British people for standing up for themselves on the Falklands though
Argentina need to watch how they tread now after this, Democracy always outweighs more than need/greed.
Regardless of who has the truer claim, it's obvious that the UK won't give the islands up without a fight (a literal one at that). So unless Argentina wants to start another war, one that they would most likely lose, they should really move on and turn their attention to stuff they can actually change. Then again, this issue is a very nice tool for the Argentinian politicians to distract their people with, so I don't expect the attitude or the rhetoric to change. It's a shame so many are blinded by nationalistic bravado to see what's what.
So this Vernet guy was German? Then it obviously should belong to Germany! Also, the Argentinian government is funny. Seems they just want to use this issue to distract from their internal (economic) problems.
On March 12 2013 19:23 Monsen wrote: So this Vernet guy was German? Then it obviously should belong to Germany! Also, the Argentinian government is funny. Seems they just want to use this issue to distract from their internal (economic) problems.
Sad thing, at least to a degree is that it appears to be working from what I've read
On March 12 2013 15:38 Zaros wrote: How about self determination of peoples.
I refer you to my first post in this thread.
How about Alaska and Hawaii? whats your view on those places being states of america?
How about tibet?
Also after Argentina recently just deciding to claim 10 billion+ worth of foreign oil companies investments into oil producing infrastructure in their country reclaiming/nationalising rigs refineries and many other assets built by foreign companies in order to share these profits with Argentina, its clear to see what the menopause can do for leadership, rofl you have few allies outside of south america now
@Striferawr Nice link and summary. No territorial dispute is 100 vs 0. Since human beings started in Africa, and snatched every inch of the land on earth, no territorial claim is perfect. However, world's country system today requires clear border lines, hence, dispute everywhere.
It used to be really simple. Whoever had superior military power could just invade weaker ones and rule their lands. This lasted for the entirety of human history up until very recently. Then, we, or at least developed countries, decided that invading another country to gain land is an evil thing to do. For example, US, Australia etc. exists because white guys colonized the land of Native Americans/Australians, but what would these countries do when they see a country that does this today? They condemn the aggressor, although they did the same thing a few hundred years ago!! Very unfair, sure, but that's how the world works today. It sucks to be the one who used to be weak, but we have to deal with it until somehow some day expanding by waging a war becomes a norm again. I doubt such a day would come in the near future, though.
That said, I don't know if this is the case for this Falkland / Malvinas. While British claim might not be perfect, Argentinian claim looks much weaker. According ot the link, following Argentina's claim, UK agreed to take the dispute over to the International Court of Justice 3 times(1947,48,55), but it was Argentina that declined. I wouldn't say ICJ was the perfect organization nor Argentina had equal international influence as UK. However, UK was at least man enough to take the challenge and potentially lose the islands if lost the case. Usually, it's the current holder of the disputed territory side that declines the offer to go to ICJ in fear of losing it, but this case was complete opposite. UK might be more influencial at ICJ, but how else would 2 countries solve an territorial dispute if direct negotiation doesn't work? The answer used to be military force, but not in the 21st century we live in. Maybe Argentina needs to grow excellent judges and diplomats and let their voices heard at the international stage rather than trying to take it by force. I would call UK a coward if they don't accept the challenge again just because oil was discovered, but Argentina is unwilling to go to ICJ anyways it seems.
One good news for Argentina is that whatever happened AFTER the dispute had started doesn't affect the ruling according to ICJ precedent. So, even if UK rules for the next 100 years, it doesn't give any extra edge to UK as long as Argentina continues to claim the sovereignty. Keep claiming, then how long a country rules is irrelevant. On the other hand, one bad news for Argentina is that its protest against British rule of Falkland / Malvinas was either non-existent or weak in early 20th century. It looks controversial, but stopping to protest is seen as giving up the claim after a certain period of time.
As Striferawr said, I don't think this referendum matters. Colonize, send people, descendents vote to stay scheme is bullshit. But Argentina's claim is by no means better in my humble opinion.
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.
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.
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.
South America is not being terrorized by Europe or USA -__-"
This is just some nationalistic movement by the goverment to gain support from its people, but I'm sure the argentinians are smart enough to not fall for that.
As the OP says, the people of Argentina support the decision of the Falkland's say, it's just the AR goverment being a bunch of assholes who like to make the country look bad internationally.
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?
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.
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.
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
On March 12 2013 20:42 fabiano wrote: South America is not being terrorized by Europe or USA -__-"
This is just some nationalistic movement by the goverment to gain support from its people, but I'm sure the argentinians are smart enough to not fall for that.
As the OP says, the people of Argentina support the decision of the Falkland's say, it's just the AR goverment being a bunch of assholes who like to make the country look bad internationally.
Not at all, esp not Venezuela nor Cuba. No way, they all live free and in happiness.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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...
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 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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Please discuss Kosovo or Palestine somewhere else. Edit:typo
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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....
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 because the original Argentinian inhabitants of the Falklands were expelled from... oh damn, I think something got confused here.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Castro did it to Miami. Put all your prisoners on the boats.
@farvacola 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.
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.
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.
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?
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 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"
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.
Castro did it to Miami. Put all your prisoners on the boats.
and that is relevant how? different political climates.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
As I said before, the islands have been British longer than Argentina has been Argentinian. We expelled a Spanish garrison (so no colonists, nobody living there, just a small force of troops) and settled the islands. Since that time we've held them continuously and nearly 9 generations of Falklanders have been born, lived and died on those islands. Kinda harsh to say they don't matter, when they don't have any other home. Again, Argentina is attempting to impose an imperial regime over the islands by ignoring the wishes of the only citizens they have ever known.
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.
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.
On March 12 2013 13:21 Kerotan wrote: I always tried to stay out of this debate, but the islanders themselves want to still remain an overseas colony of Britain, and in interviews I've read they consider themselves falklanders first and then british next. I guess my point is, they seem to have their own personal distinct identity, and what gives me as a British citizen of England any right to say otherwise, the same goes Argentinians who live on the main land.
Put it this way, if the island was undoubtedly a part of Argentinian sovereign and the inhabitants of the island wanted to be independent, would it be right to stop them? Me thinks not.
Ok. Imagine this situation. You come home one night to find there are a group of people you don't know in your house. You want them to leave, they want to stay.
So they have a vote. The majority vote for staying in your house and so they all stay.
Looks legit.
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.
It’s true that the English don’t have much claim to these islands, other than being a colonial power. It seems weird to me that the Argentines actually seem to believe that they have more claim than the English.
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.
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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 04:34 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 04:34 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.
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 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?
No if that's what I meant then I wouldn't have written the second line "You know, like how Britain took all her colonies." So since you have said that is the stupidest post, I'll have to say that was the stupidest interpretation of what it could mean.
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?
No if that's what I meant then I wouldn't have written the second line "You know, like how Britain took all her colonies." So since you have said that is the stupidest post, I'll have to say that was the stupidest interpretation of what it could mean.
I am fairly certain that calling for a nation to man up and take a part of a foreign nation is hard to interpret as anything other than a call for military force. Please tell me how "Argentinians, just man up and take the island" isn't call for the use of military force?
The fact is that, at this time, there is literally no justification for Argentina continuing to fight over the Falkland Islands. Even if the historical arguments didn't reduce to competing gibberish, which they do, nobody would consider them paramount over the wishes of the residents. It's just completely irrelevant at this point. The sabre-rattling is a little sad at best and North Korea-esque at worst.
Wow, nationalism, still a rallying call to the retarded even in the 21st century.
Incidentally, I think it may have been farvacola who mentioned 'national self-determination' earlier. I'm not being obtuse, but why didn't the discussion end at that point, or least mutate to the interesting third option, i.e it becoming an independent territory?
In cases like this (as opposed to say, I don't know, my own country!), where there's an overwhelming majority who wish to remain within the embrace of the UK, what possible justification is there for not acceding to their wishes?
It's about time that colonial guilt wasn't used as a stick to beat the British with at every opportunity. End of the day, most nations have behaved abominably at some point, but it seems every other trip David Cameron is going to some site and apologising for some atrocity hundreds of years ago. Regrettable yes, but apologising for the sins of your (great great great) grandfathers does close to fuck all in terms of dealing with modern societal issues.
Why not just, I don't know, stop living in some bygone age and accept the realities for what they are now, and try to do a better, more fair job going forward.
On March 13 2013 10:39 Wombat_NI wrote: In cases like this (as opposed to say, I don't know, my own country!), where there's an overwhelming majority who wish to remain within the embrace of the UK, what possible justification is there for not acceding to their wishes?
1. Its mine, i want it, gime gime (billions of dollars in oil). 2. If you suck as a leader, nationalism is a good way to stay popular so people ignore how bad you are at leading.
On March 13 2013 10:34 lolmlg wrote: every1 is dum lol lol lol lol
The fact is that, at this time, there is literally no justification for Argentina continuing to fight over the Falkland Islands. Even if the historical arguments didn't reduce to competing gibberish, which they do, nobody would consider them paramount over the wishes of the residents. It's just completely irrelevant at this point. The sabre-rattling is a little sad at best and North Korea-esque at worst.
I disagree, there is literal justification for Argentina to continue to fight over the Falkland Islands, there is historical precedent, they were basically kicked when they were down, and the population of the Falklands is truly meaningless in the sense that, its so few people, that it becomes obvious its a skeleton crew just to hold the rights to the island.
On March 13 2013 11:23 Wombat_NI wrote: Who gives a flying fuck if there aren't many of them, they are people, many of whom have lived their for generations and generations.
Yeah let's throw them under the bus to grease the wheels of international politics.
On March 13 2013 11:23 Wombat_NI wrote: Who gives a flying fuck if there aren't many of them, they are people, many of whom have lived their for generations and generations.
Yeah let's throw them under the bus to grease the wheels of international politics.
As has been mentioned before in this thread, Britain has more right to the Falklands than Argentina has to exist as a nation =p. I mean the british evicted a small garisson of spanish soldiers to claim the islands, the spanish killed probably millions of people in order to establish her south american colonies.
On March 13 2013 11:23 Wombat_NI wrote: Who gives a flying fuck if there aren't many of them, they are people, many of whom have lived their for generations and generations.
Yeah let's throw them under the bus to grease the wheels of international politics.
Snip
I dont support double standards.
Also so good of you to use the such a polarised image of a Palestinian, I might as well put up a picture of Fred phelps of WBC fame and say therefore all old white men really hate gays.
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.
I think you are talking about the example I wrote before, so, let me quote it here again.
At an imaginary disputed islands 1. Country A breaks every treaty and international law and invade the islands that Country B owns 2. Country A wins and expesl all native citizens of Country B 3. immigrate people from Country A 4. refuse to negotiate for 200 years or something 5. boom, everyone on the islands wants to stay in Country A
I strongly disagree with the idea that islands should automatically belong to Country A just because everyone on the islands today are happy that way. It promotes war and rogue countries invading anohter country without any punishment. If step 4 was 5 years instead of 200 years, I think many people would agree. As I said in another post, human society is in constant struggle in finding a good middle ground. If step 4 was relatively short like 1 month or 1 year, then Country A looks to have no legitimacy. At the same time, if Step 4 was ,say, 500 or 2000 years, then it might not make sense to return the islands to Country B at that point. Every case is different, and elapsed time is not the only factor, but it should make sense. This has been the way territories are established for thousands of years in human history, so I wouldn't say every land should go back to the original owners. However, for relatively recent ones where Country A's move at step 1 and 2 were clearly recorded obvious violations of the rules at the time, then these islands should belong to Country B no matter how current islanders think. It does not mean that Country B should just kick everyone out on the islands once reaquired the islands. In reality, compromise needs to happen so that the impact to islanders lives becomes small, but sovereignty of the islands should go back to Country B. Overridding the wishes of people might be necessary for the sake of justice and punishing Country A for the wrong move. It is not a perfect solution obviously. Where to draw the line is difficult. Depending on how far we go back and how to consider individual situations, the world will be a mess with no country having any legitimacy including US as you said. But if we ignore what I just wrote, then any country with military superiority can invade a territory (or simply through emigration) and hold an election after a while to "legitimately" expand their borders.
In short, I am against this simple "locals decided according to self-determination, so let them belong to whichever they want" idea when these locals shouldn't have been there in the first place. Referendum shouldn't matter in this case because it is "staged" in a sense.
That said, as I have consistently expressed, Argentina didn't really have any indigenous people on Falkland/Malvinas, so the example above doesn't apply here and Argentina's claim is weak IMO. Referendum or not, UK has a much better case. AFAIK, no treaty/international law was broken by British at the time of reoccupation in 1833. That, I think, is what matters the most.
The islands beeing british is just a relic from the british empire. To me It makes no sense to control territorys that far away from your homeland. The english claim that the falklands are english is as credible as the english claim that the usa is english. When islands are to small to be independant, they should belong to the closest independant nation, wich in this case is argentinia. The islands could well be independant btw, dont realy see a problem with that.
On March 13 2013 17:46 Rassy wrote: The islands beeing british is just a relic from the british empire. It makes no sense to control territorys that far away from your homeland. The english claim that the falklands are english is as credible as the english claim that the usa is english. When islands are to small to be independant, they should belong to the closest independant nation, wich in this case is argentinia.
Who decides what is too small to be independent? Can Germany claim the Netherlands because they think you are too small? Can Iraq claim Kuwait because it thinks its too small, can Russia Claim Georgia can India claim Pakistan can China claim Japan? Proximity and Size are really stupid arguments and anyone can claim any country with those arguments. Bunching countries together because they are close together has a history of failure and genocide in many places.
We could also say Argentina is a relic of the spanish empire and should be given back to the natives (mostly wiped out) we could say give France,England,Spain etc back to Italy because they used to be a part of the Roman Empire, if more than a generation of people have lived there is should be left to self determination.
Self Determination of peoples is enshrined into the united nations, obviously people emigrating to a country then calling a referendum is silly but these people have been here for 200 years, 200 years ago most countries in the world didn't exist and there wasn't even a native population on the islands.The Falklands are culturally British, the people want to be British so why should they be given up to the nearest country (500km away...)
I wonder what it would be like to live in the Falklands. I have seen some pictures when i was smaller but would be really curious to know from someone living there. I didn' t know there was that much Oil there, i wasn' t aware that there is Oil in Argentina as well?
On March 13 2013 18:13 pebble444 wrote: I wonder what it would be like to live in the Falklands. I have seen some pictures when i was smaller but would be really curious to know from someone living there. I didn' t know there was that much Oil there, i wasn' t aware that there is Oil in Argentina as well?
Any time there's a conflict now, conspiracy theorists start saying "It's all over oil." when in reality, the battle for resources far transcends beyond merely oil. If Britain really was concerned about their oil resources falling prey to hostile nations, they probably would not have granted independence to their colonies in the Middle East. Truthfully, the UK is quite involved in the Middle East, but does not need to plant their flag in the soil (except perhaps in Basra, Iraq) to maintain their national investments in the region.
The Falkland Islands, as an international conflict, is actually really insignificant compared to many contemporary conflicts that are killing thousands of people, and have killed millions.
On March 13 2013 17:46 Rassy wrote: The islands beeing british is just a relic from the british empire. To me It makes no sense to control territorys that far away from your homeland. The english claim that the falklands are english is as credible as the english claim that the usa is english. When islands are to small to be independant, they should belong to the closest independant nation, wich in this case is argentinia. The islands could well be independant btw, dont realy see a problem with that.
USA declared independence, the Falklands declared dependence, that comparison doesn't work. One comparison which would work though is that claiming the Falklands should be Argentinian is as credible as the claim that the USA should be Argentinian, both were previously claimed by Spain and both have since gained populations which don't want to be part of Spain and have their own cultural identity.
On March 13 2013 03:13 Orek wrote: In short, I am against this simple "locals decided according to self-determination, so let them belong to whichever they want" idea when these locals shouldn't have been there in the first place. Referendum shouldn't matter in this case because it is "staged" in a sense.
"Shouldn't have been there in the first place." This kind of rhetoric might have had some legitimacy 200 years ago but not now. Not when there have been generations upon generations living and dying there. I don't understand why you dismiss this as something of no consequence. Either way there has been a war fought over the islands and Argentina lost. The dispute should've ended back then.
On March 13 2013 03:13 Orek wrote: In short, I am against this simple "locals decided according to self-determination, so let them belong to whichever they want" idea when these locals shouldn't have been there in the first place. Referendum shouldn't matter in this case because it is "staged" in a sense.
"Shouldn't have been there in the first place." This kind of rhetoric might have had some legitimacy 200 years ago but not now. Not when there have been generations upon generations living and dying there. I don't understand why you dismiss this as something of no consequence. Either way there has been a war fought over the islands and Argentina lost. The dispute should've ended back then.
What does it matter that a couple hundred people lived and died in there ?
If they like Brittain so much then they can move there.
These peoples existance has had one major purpose, to populate the island giving Brittain a lasting claim to it, its not like a bunch of Brittish sailors went out of their way to live there, they were commanded to populate the island, and are still serving their homeland every time they cast their vote on some stupid ballot.
Its a 200 year old occupation strategy, nothing more, they might be living civilian lives, but they are nothing but occupation agents from england.
On March 13 2013 03:13 Orek wrote: In short, I am against this simple "locals decided according to self-determination, so let them belong to whichever they want" idea when these locals shouldn't have been there in the first place. Referendum shouldn't matter in this case because it is "staged" in a sense.
"Shouldn't have been there in the first place." This kind of rhetoric might have had some legitimacy 200 years ago but not now. Not when there have been generations upon generations living and dying there. I don't understand why you dismiss this as something of no consequence. Either way there has been a war fought over the islands and Argentina lost. The dispute should've ended back then.
What does it matter that a couple hundred people lived and died in there ?
If they like Brittain so much then they can move there.
These peoples existance has had one major purpose, to populate the island giving Brittain a lasting claim to it, its not like a bunch of Brittish sailors went out of their way to live there, they were commanded to populate the island, and are still serving their homeland every time they cast their vote on some stupid ballot.
Its a 200 year old occupation strategy, nothing more, they might be living civilian lives, but they are nothing but occupation agents from england.
Utter nonsense. I could equally claim that Argentina isn't a real nation, they're just a group of people squatting on the land belonging to the natives so they can claim it and live there and that it's all part of one big agenda.
On March 13 2013 03:13 Orek wrote: In short, I am against this simple "locals decided according to self-determination, so let them belong to whichever they want" idea when these locals shouldn't have been there in the first place. Referendum shouldn't matter in this case because it is "staged" in a sense.
"Shouldn't have been there in the first place." This kind of rhetoric might have had some legitimacy 200 years ago but not now. Not when there have been generations upon generations living and dying there. I don't understand why you dismiss this as something of no consequence. Either way there has been a war fought over the islands and Argentina lost. The dispute should've ended back then.
What does it matter that a couple hundred people lived and died in there ?
If they like Brittain so much then they can move there.
These peoples existance has had one major purpose, to populate the island giving Brittain a lasting claim to it, its not like a bunch of Brittish sailors went out of their way to live there, they were commanded to populate the island, and are still serving their homeland every time they cast their vote on some stupid ballot.
Its a 200 year old occupation strategy, nothing more, they might be living civilian lives, but they are nothing but occupation agents from england.
So Brazil should be given back to the native tribes yes?
On March 13 2013 03:13 Orek wrote: In short, I am against this simple "locals decided according to self-determination, so let them belong to whichever they want" idea when these locals shouldn't have been there in the first place. Referendum shouldn't matter in this case because it is "staged" in a sense.
"Shouldn't have been there in the first place." This kind of rhetoric might have had some legitimacy 200 years ago but not now. Not when there have been generations upon generations living and dying there. I don't understand why you dismiss this as something of no consequence. Either way there has been a war fought over the islands and Argentina lost. The dispute should've ended back then.
What does it matter that a couple hundred people lived and died in there ?
If they like Brittain so much then they can move there.
These peoples existance has had one major purpose, to populate the island giving Brittain a lasting claim to it, its not like a bunch of Brittish sailors went out of their way to live there, they were commanded to populate the island, and are still serving their homeland every time they cast their vote on some stupid ballot.
Its a 200 year old occupation strategy, nothing more, they might be living civilian lives, but they are nothing but occupation agents from england.
So Brazil should be given back to the native tribes yes?
Brazil has been independent since the 70s. It's a democracy. Native tribes are a minority. The Falkland Islands is a very different story from Brazil.
On March 13 2013 03:13 Orek wrote: In short, I am against this simple "locals decided according to self-determination, so let them belong to whichever they want" idea when these locals shouldn't have been there in the first place. Referendum shouldn't matter in this case because it is "staged" in a sense.
"Shouldn't have been there in the first place." This kind of rhetoric might have had some legitimacy 200 years ago but not now. Not when there have been generations upon generations living and dying there. I don't understand why you dismiss this as something of no consequence. Either way there has been a war fought over the islands and Argentina lost. The dispute should've ended back then.
What does it matter that a couple hundred people lived and died in there ?
If they like Brittain so much then they can move there.
These peoples existance has had one major purpose, to populate the island giving Brittain a lasting claim to it, its not like a bunch of Brittish sailors went out of their way to live there, they were commanded to populate the island, and are still serving their homeland every time they cast their vote on some stupid ballot.
Its a 200 year old occupation strategy, nothing more, they might be living civilian lives, but they are nothing but occupation agents from england.
So Brazil should be given back to the native tribes yes?
Brazil has been independent since the 70s. It's a democracy. Native tribes are a minority. The Falkland Islands is a very different story from Brazil.
Yes, because Brazil has native tribes who were robbed of their land by the colonial powers. The Falklands natives are currently governed by their home nation and have been except for that one time thirty years ago when a foreign colonial power attempted to occupy them by force. The Brazilian natives were fucked over by the arrival of Europeans, the Falklands natives back then were penguins and had no strong political views.
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.
I think you are talking about the example I wrote before, so, let me quote it here again.
At an imaginary disputed islands 1. Country A breaks every treaty and international law and invade the islands that Country B owns 2. Country A wins and expesl all native citizens of Country B 3. immigrate people from Country A 4. refuse to negotiate for 200 years or something 5. boom, everyone on the islands wants to stay in Country A
I strongly disagree with the idea that islands should automatically belong to Country A just because everyone on the islands today are happy that way. It promotes war and rogue countries invading anohter country without any punishment. If step 4 was 5 years instead of 200 years, I think many people would agree. As I said in another post, human society is in constant struggle in finding a good middle ground. If step 4 was relatively short like 1 month or 1 year, then Country A looks to have no legitimacy. At the same time, if Step 4 was ,say, 500 or 2000 years, then it might not make sense to return the islands to Country B at that point. Every case is different, and elapsed time is not the only factor, but it should make sense. This has been the way territories are established for thousands of years in human history, so I wouldn't say every land should go back to the original owners. However, for relatively recent ones where Country A's move at step 1 and 2 were clearly recorded obvious violations of the rules at the time, then these islands should belong to Country B no matter how current islanders think. It does not mean that Country B should just kick everyone out on the islands once reaquired the islands. In reality, compromise needs to happen so that the impact to islanders lives becomes small, but sovereignty of the islands should go back to Country B. Overridding the wishes of people might be necessary for the sake of justice and punishing Country A for the wrong move. It is not a perfect solution obviously. Where to draw the line is difficult. Depending on how far we go back and how to consider individual situations, the world will be a mess with no country having any legitimacy including US as you said. But if we ignore what I just wrote, then any country with military superiority can invade a territory (or simply through emigration) and hold an election after a while to "legitimately" expand their borders.
In short, I am against this simple "locals decided according to self-determination, so let them belong to whichever they want" idea when these locals shouldn't have been there in the first place. Referendum shouldn't matter in this case because it is "staged" in a sense.
That said, as I have consistently expressed, Argentina didn't really have any indigenous people on Falkland/Malvinas, so the example above doesn't apply here and Argentina's claim is weak IMO. Referendum or not, UK has a much better case. AFAIK, no treaty/international law was broken by British at the time of reoccupation in 1833. That, I think, is what matters the most.
200 years ago? Try 70 years ago. Invading other countries and colonizing/annexing their territory didn't go out of style till the end of World War II, and that's only because the Axis countries lost.
But even this 'out of style' period is but a transient phase. As long as the status quo of territorial ownership is not satisfactory for all people, and it is not, this practice will be resurrected sooner / later. The world's resources are, at the end of the day, limited, and all living creatures will do what they must to survive and thrive.
On March 13 2013 03:13 Orek wrote: In short, I am against this simple "locals decided according to self-determination, so let them belong to whichever they want" idea when these locals shouldn't have been there in the first place. Referendum shouldn't matter in this case because it is "staged" in a sense.
"Shouldn't have been there in the first place." This kind of rhetoric might have had some legitimacy 200 years ago but not now. Not when there have been generations upon generations living and dying there. I don't understand why you dismiss this as something of no consequence. Either way there has been a war fought over the islands and Argentina lost. The dispute should've ended back then.
What does it matter that a couple hundred people lived and died in there ?
If they like Brittain so much then they can move there.
These peoples existance has had one major purpose, to populate the island giving Brittain a lasting claim to it, its not like a bunch of Brittish sailors went out of their way to live there, they were commanded to populate the island, and are still serving their homeland every time they cast their vote on some stupid ballot.
Its a 200 year old occupation strategy, nothing more, they might be living civilian lives, but they are nothing but occupation agents from england.
So Brazil should be given back to the native tribes yes?
Brazil has been independent since the 70s. It's a democracy. Native tribes are a minority. The Falkland Islands is a very different story from Brazil.
Brazil has been independent from Portugal since ~1822, after the portuguese crown cowardly fled from their country because their fear of Napoleon around 1800.
On March 13 2013 03:13 Orek wrote: In short, I am against this simple "locals decided according to self-determination, so let them belong to whichever they want" idea when these locals shouldn't have been there in the first place. Referendum shouldn't matter in this case because it is "staged" in a sense.
"Shouldn't have been there in the first place." This kind of rhetoric might have had some legitimacy 200 years ago but not now. Not when there have been generations upon generations living and dying there. I don't understand why you dismiss this as something of no consequence. Either way there has been a war fought over the islands and Argentina lost. The dispute should've ended back then.
What does it matter that a couple hundred people lived and died in there ?
If they like Brittain so much then they can move there.
These peoples existance has had one major purpose, to populate the island giving Brittain a lasting claim to it, its not like a bunch of Brittish sailors went out of their way to live there, they were commanded to populate the island, and are still serving their homeland every time they cast their vote on some stupid ballot.
Its a 200 year old occupation strategy, nothing more, they might be living civilian lives, but they are nothing but occupation agents from england.
It's not a couple hundred of people, it's a couple hundred years of people living and dying there.
Do you realize how batshit insane your second sentence is? Just because they like being part of the UK, politically, doesn't mean they want to move halfway across the world to live in a place they have never seen or been to. Don't be intentionally dense.
The people who lived there 200 years ago were "occupation agents" or whatever you want to call them. Their children were just Falkland Islanders, and those are the people living there today. They may be serving their homeland when they cast their ballot to remain part of the UK, but do you think they are doing so mindlessly? Almost all of them don't want to be part of Argentina, so why force them? Because it has been discovered, since colonization, that there are oil reserves there?
How can you say they are living civilian lives but are nothing but occupation agents? That's a direct contradiction. These people aren't on direct orders from the British government to plant themselves on the islands for the next 100 years, they just live there.
Sounds to me like Britain got lucky in that one of their smaller colonies has a great potential for wealth. Nothing wrong with that, as long as the people don't mind being part of the UK. You don't see Canada trying to bully the U.S. into giving them Alaska, because it makes no sense.
On March 13 2013 03:13 Orek wrote: In short, I am against this simple "locals decided according to self-determination, so let them belong to whichever they want" idea when these locals shouldn't have been there in the first place. Referendum shouldn't matter in this case because it is "staged" in a sense.
"Shouldn't have been there in the first place." This kind of rhetoric might have had some legitimacy 200 years ago but not now. Not when there have been generations upon generations living and dying there. I don't understand why you dismiss this as something of no consequence. Either way there has been a war fought over the islands and Argentina lost. The dispute should've ended back then.
What does it matter that a couple hundred people lived and died in there ?
If they like Brittain so much then they can move there.
These peoples existance has had one major purpose, to populate the island giving Brittain a lasting claim to it, its not like a bunch of Brittish sailors went out of their way to live there, they were commanded to populate the island, and are still serving their homeland every time they cast their vote on some stupid ballot.
Its a 200 year old occupation strategy, nothing more, they might be living civilian lives, but they are nothing but occupation agents from england.
So Brazil should be given back to the native tribes yes?
Brazil has been independent since the 70s. It's a democracy. Native tribes are a minority. The Falkland Islands is a very different story from Brazil.
Brazil has been independent from Portugal since ~1822, after the portuguese crown cowardly fled from their country because their fear of Napoleon around 1800.
Give the falklands back to the penguins!
My mistake. You are quite correct. I was thinking of Mozambique and a couple of other colonies that they gave up in the 70s after Selazar.
I wouldn't call it cowardly to run from Napoleon, though. Everybody who stood and fought Napoleon got a royal ass-kicking all the way to Russia. It makes sense. I guess there's this foolish pride that some people have where they value their life less than their reputation. I'd rather be a living "coward" than a "brave" corpse.
What claim does Argentina actually have to the islands? South Americans here seem to think that the islands were stolen from Argentina.
Argentina was founded in 1816. Britain claimed the islands in 1833. Between 1816 and 1833 the islands were uninhabited and Argentina made no claim to them at all. Argentinian people have never lived on the islands and Argentina has never owned the islands. The islands are hundreds of miles away from Argentina, which under international law means that Argentina has no claim based on location.
Why should the islands belong to Argentina? I see the claim to be as strong as Japan's claim to Hawaii.
On March 14 2013 02:24 Shottaz wrote: I'm still a little bit bitter that we lost 255 soldiers and 3 Falkland Islanders because Argentina thought we wouldn't defend our teritory.
Not to mention the amount of needless argentine casualties.
To continue asking for the islands back is an insult.
This is a big part of why I feel strongly about this matter. 1982 is the most recent time in which a foreign nation has invaded British territory. They attacked us unexpectedly and terrorized our civilians, and now the Argentinians think that the British are the bad guys here.
On March 13 2013 03:13 Orek wrote: In short, I am against this simple "locals decided according to self-determination, so let them belong to whichever they want" idea when these locals shouldn't have been there in the first place. Referendum shouldn't matter in this case because it is "staged" in a sense.
"Shouldn't have been there in the first place." This kind of rhetoric might have had some legitimacy 200 years ago but not now. Not when there have been generations upon generations living and dying there. I don't understand why you dismiss this as something of no consequence. Either way there has been a war fought over the islands and Argentina lost. The dispute should've ended back then.
What does it matter that a couple hundred people lived and died in there ?
If they like Brittain so much then they can move there.
These peoples existance has had one major purpose, to populate the island giving Brittain a lasting claim to it, its not like a bunch of Brittish sailors went out of their way to live there, they were commanded to populate the island, and are still serving their homeland every time they cast their vote on some stupid ballot.
Its a 200 year old occupation strategy, nothing more, they might be living civilian lives, but they are nothing but occupation agents from england.
Every territory on the planet is today claimed on the basis of people living there for a long time. At some point original claims disappear. Funny thing is US, Brazil or Argentina are much more controversial than Falklands as those still have minorities that the land was originally taken from by force. None is asking Brazilians to leave.
On March 14 2013 02:49 hzflank wrote: What claim does Argentina actually have to the islands? South Americans here seem to think that the islands were stolen from Argentina.
Argentina was founded in 1816. Britain claimed the islands in 1833. Between 1816 and 1833 the islands were uninhabited and Argentina made no claim to them at all. Argentinian people have never lived on the islands and Argentina has never owned the islands. The islands are hundreds of miles away from Argentina, which under international law means that Argentina has no claim based on location.
Why should the islands belong to Argentina? I see the claim to be as strong as Japan's claim to Hawaii.
They feel they inherited Spain's claim to them. Spain's claim was one of many among colonial powers and in the changing winds of the 19th Century they were claimed by everyone with ships, as was the rest of the world. When the dust settled in the 20th Century and regular colonial wars, in which you'd try and steal everything claimed by everyone else everywhere, ended then places generally became the property of the people that lived there. The principle of self determination beat the system of claiming everywhere and keeping what you could hold. They're trying to be a colonial power but they're 200 years too late.
On March 13 2013 03:13 Orek wrote: In short, I am against this simple "locals decided according to self-determination, so let them belong to whichever they want" idea when these locals shouldn't have been there in the first place. Referendum shouldn't matter in this case because it is "staged" in a sense.
"Shouldn't have been there in the first place." This kind of rhetoric might have had some legitimacy 200 years ago but not now. Not when there have been generations upon generations living and dying there. I don't understand why you dismiss this as something of no consequence. Either way there has been a war fought over the islands and Argentina lost. The dispute should've ended back then.
What does it matter that a couple hundred people lived and died in there ?
If they like Brittain so much then they can move there.
These peoples existance has had one major purpose, to populate the island giving Brittain a lasting claim to it, its not like a bunch of Brittish sailors went out of their way to live there, they were commanded to populate the island, and are still serving their homeland every time they cast their vote on some stupid ballot.
Its a 200 year old occupation strategy, nothing more, they might be living civilian lives, but they are nothing but occupation agents from england.
So Brazil should be given back to the native tribes yes?
Brazil has been independent since the 70s. It's a democracy. Native tribes are a minority. The Falkland Islands is a very different story from Brazil.
Brazil has been independent from Portugal since ~1822, after the portuguese crown cowardly fled from their country because their fear of Napoleon around 1800.
Give the falklands back to the penguins!
My mistake. You are quite correct. I was thinking of Mozambique and a couple of other colonies that they gave up in the 70s after Selazar.
I wouldn't call it cowardly to run from Napoleon, though. Everybody who stood and fought Napoleon got a royal ass-kicking all the way to Russia. It makes sense. I guess there's this foolish pride that some people have where they value their life less than their reputation. I'd rather be a living "coward" than a "brave" corpse.
It was coward to leave their people at the mercy of Napoleon's will.
Just asked my Argentinian gf about it. Her response: Yeah, it's pretty stupid (the claim), but if - by whatever means - she succeeds, she will be president for life.
And right after that, she told me that Mrs. Kirchner just recently publicly stated that Diabetes is a disease of the rich, because all they do is sit around and eat.
And just last week, the Argentinian government presented a plan to nationalize all bank accounts and outlaw foreign credit cards.
Perhaps the UK should just return the islands to the natives: i.e. no one. Evacuate all the islanders to the UK, and nuke the place to irradiate it. Then, announce there will be periodic unannounced nuclear testing on the island to ensure non-natives do not set up shop there.
On March 14 2013 03:42 HunterX11 wrote: Perhaps the UK should just return the islands to the natives: i.e. no one. Evacuate all the islanders to the UK, and nuke the place to irradiate it. Then, announce there will be periodic unannounced nuclear testing on the island to ensure non-natives do not set up shop there.
I'm assuming you're a native American Indian, otherwise you'll probably be joining the Falklanders back in Europe.
On March 14 2013 02:49 hzflank wrote: What claim does Argentina actually have to the islands? South Americans here seem to think that the islands were stolen from Argentina.
Argentina was founded in 1816. Britain claimed the islands in 1833. Between 1816 and 1833 the islands were uninhabited and Argentina made no claim to them at all. Argentinian people have never lived on the islands and Argentina has never owned the islands. The islands are hundreds of miles away from Argentina, which under international law means that Argentina has no claim based on location.
Why should the islands belong to Argentina? I see the claim to be as strong as Japan's claim to Hawaii.
Part of Argentina's claim is that Argentina acquired no man's land at the time. Then, British appeared, requesting Argentina to back off despite the fact that British had left the isalnds several decades prior. While no official decleration of war was made, Argentina was heavily outmanned and outgunned, so they had to leave. Argentina considers this an act of force and illegal acquisition of their lands. There are other points listed in the link. Argentina's claim isn't groundless unlike how some people think. The more I learn, the more I feel that today's media focuses too much on UK's claim. I still think UK's claim looks relatively better, but it is unfortunate that Argentina's side of story isn't as widely known by people, including myself a few days ago.
Kwark, I feel you summed up my feelings better than I could over the course of the first few pages, I tip my hat.
People on the outside may see it as a dispute over oil but it just isn't true. Oil was not the reason we defended and continue to defend the islands. Protecting territory so far away from the army/navy is a very expensive thing to do, it is the reason our colonial friends from over the pond fell out with us. The Empire has acted poorly, shall we say, at various times but the Falklands is not one of those examples. Now even if Argentina had a legitimate reason to dispute the occupation of British descendants, and they don't, I advise you to look at a world map of 1833. Times change. If you did start to return territories from history (and to be clear there is no nation who has a claim on the Falklands) then where would you stop?
On March 13 2013 17:46 Rassy wrote: The islands beeing british is just a relic from the british empire. To me It makes no sense to control territorys that far away from your homeland. The english claim that the falklands are english is as credible as the english claim that the usa is english. When islands are to small to be independant, they should belong to the closest independant nation, wich in this case is argentinia. The islands could well be independant btw, dont realy see a problem with that.
1) It's not a relic of the British empire if the people living there consider themselves British.
2) The Falkland Islands are hundreds of miles away from Argentina. Your belief that somehow the closest proximate country should have possession over an island, disregarding all other factors, is asinine. Regardless of whether or not Britain's initial colonization of the islands was right or wrong, that was 200 years ago. You don't erase 200 years of cultural history because all of a sudden you've decided the island is closer to Argentina than the UK, so it should change hands. That logic is ridiculous and just invites a military response from the other side.
3) Your analogy is terrible. The USA declared independence from Great Britain, and won that independence in a rather bloody war 250 years ago. The Falkland Islands wish to remain dependent on the UK, and the UK is happy to have them. Why does Argentina need to get involved at all?
4) You may not see a problem with the islands being independent, but the people actually living on these islands do. I would think their opinions are a bit more relevant than yours or mine. There's no reason to force them to be an independent entity just because Argentina wants to fight over whether or not the islands were stolen from them.
On March 14 2013 04:14 Aristodemus wrote: Kwark, I feel you summed up my feelings better than I could over the course of the first few pages, I tip my hat.
People on the outside may see it as a dispute over oil but it just isn't true. Oil was not the reason we defended and continue to defend the islands. Protecting territory so far away from the army/navy is a very expensive thing to do, it is the reason our colonial friends from over the pond fell out with us. The Empire has acted poorly, shall we say, at various times but the Falklands is not one of those examples. Now even if Argentina had a legitimate reason to dispute the occupation of British descendants, and they don't, I advise you to look at a world map of 1833. Times change. If you did start to return territories from history (and to be clear there is no nation who has a claim on the Falklands) then where would you stop?
You stop nowhere! Cram everyone from North America, South America, and Australia back into Europe and leave those continents for the native tribes! Europe is big enough to handle the load!
It's a shame I'm from the UK because it's being implied that it is influencing my views on this.
National, fucking, SELF determination. It's rather simple, instead of allowing this nonsense to continue, call Kirchner out on her blatant distraction tactics.
Incidentally, if the time comes where a majority in NI wish to join the Republic, I'd be fine with that. Allow people to decide their own affiliations, as long as minorities are respected.
On March 14 2013 06:18 Wombat_NI wrote: It's a shame I'm from the UK because it's being implied that it is influencing my views on this.
National, fucking, SELF determination. It's rather simple, instead of allowing this nonsense to continue, call Kirchner out on her blatant distraction tactics.
Incidentally, if the time comes where a majority in NI wish to join the Republic, I'd be fine with that. Allow people to decide their own affiliations, as long as minorities are respected.
The problem is that people are questioning the self-determination itself because they feel the people living there are some sort of British agents planted there to subvert their rightful Argentinian overlords. If you question the validity of the self-determination, all other logic goes out the window, and that's what they are riding on.
But no, once you realize that the people actually living on these islands want to be part of the UK, there is no good argument for why Argentina should suddenly take control. None whatsoever.
The British were living on the Falklands a good 70 years or so before any Argentine ever set foot on them, I don't even understand how it's still up for debate.
It's also worth noting that the islands were discovered by an Englishman in 1690 and Argentina's "colony" there in the early 1830's was lead by a German guy and a British guy and the team consisted of quite a few British mercenaries too...
On March 14 2013 02:49 hzflank wrote: What claim does Argentina actually have to the islands? South Americans here seem to think that the islands were stolen from Argentina.
Argentina was founded in 1816. Britain claimed the islands in 1833. Between 1816 and 1833 the islands were uninhabited and Argentina made no claim to them at all. Argentinian people have never lived on the islands and Argentina has never owned the islands. The islands are hundreds of miles away from Argentina, which under international law means that Argentina has no claim based on location.
Why should the islands belong to Argentina? I see the claim to be as strong as Japan's claim to Hawaii.
Part of Argentina's claim is that Argentina acquired no man's land at the time. Then, British appeared, requesting Argentina to back off despite the fact that British had left the isalnds several decades prior. While no official decleration of war was made, Argentina was heavily outmanned and outgunned, so they had to leave. Argentina considers this an act of force and illegal acquisition of their lands. There are other points listed in the link. Argentina's claim isn't groundless unlike how some people think. The more I learn, the more I feel that today's media focuses too much on UK's claim. I still think UK's claim looks relatively better, but it is unfortunate that Argentina's side of story isn't as widely known by people, including myself a few days ago.
edit:typo
As Quark wrote self-determination trumps 200 year old political landgrabs.
Oh yeah? then self determination existed when you colonized and subjugated an entire continent! Self determination existed when your presidents deemed necessary to intervine domestic politics (yeah, tell me all the dictatorships of the 70's just came out of nowhere) Democracy existed when you thought it was fair to impose sanctions on other countries in continents that are thounsands of miles away from home. YAY DEMOCRACY!
OUR DEMOCRACY IS FAIR AND THEREFORE WE ARE ALLOWED TO MESS WITH THE POLITICS OF THE RESTO OF THE WORLD, but if said countries do something that we may not like THEN THEY ARE AGAINST DEMOCRACY.
Please if you want to keep FALKLANDS or reclaim MALVINAS then stop pretending you have moreal high ground... because you don't. You hypocritical bastards clinge to things you dismissed when the very people you were conquering tried to use it on their defense... spare me that bullshit
YEAH NOW THAT WE FUCKED UP THE ATMOSPHERE LET'S MAKE RULES FOR THE RESTO OF THE WORLD AND HOPE EVERYONE IT'S OK WITH IT because if they are not then OMG THEY JUST DON'T CARE ABOUT THE PLANET
In the mean time let's spare companies that fuck up or own soil and people because THEY ARE TOO BIG TO FALL
On April 13 2013 17:58 Painmaker wrote: Oh yeah? then self determination existed when you colonized and subjugated an entire continent! Self determination existed when your presidents deemed necessary to intervine domestic politics (yeah, tell me all the dictatorships of the 70's just came out of nowhere) Democracy existed when you thought it was fair to impose sanctions on other countries in continents that are thounsands of miles away from home. YAY DEMOCRACY!
OUR DEMOCRACY IS FAIR AND THEREFORE WE ARE ALLOWED TO MESS WITH THE POLITICS OF THE RESTO OF THE WORLD, but if said countries do something that we may not like THEN THEY ARE AGAINST DEMOCRACY.
Please if you want to keep FALKLANDS or reclaim MALVINAS then stop pretending you have moreal high ground... because you don't. You hypocritical bastards clinge to things you dismissed when the very people you were conquering tried to use it on their defense... spare me that bullshit
Britains settled on an empty Island and stayed there since then, that is all that happened.
None of the crimes that the USA (if that is what you hint at) might have commited in South America is related to the Falklands in any way. Your rage is understandable but utterly misguided.
Painmaker, let's not start slinging mud in what's been a relatively civil discussion?
Hyperbole and caps lock really don't help make your point. You might want to step back, take a breath and wonder if you're a bit too personally invested.
The undeniable fact that the U.K., like many countries, has had a blatant disregard for the process of self-determination whenever it suits them doesn't mean their defense of self-determination is invalid. It makes it ironic, not wrong.
On April 13 2013 17:58 Painmaker wrote: Oh yeah? then self determination existed when you colonized and subjugated an entire continent! Self determination existed when your presidents deemed necessary to intervine domestic politics (yeah, tell me all the dictatorships of the 70's just came out of nowhere) Democracy existed when you thought it was fair to impose sanctions on other countries in continents that are thounsands of miles away from home. YAY DEMOCRACY!
OUR DEMOCRACY IS FAIR AND THEREFORE WE ARE ALLOWED TO MESS WITH THE POLITICS OF THE RESTO OF THE WORLD, but if said countries do something that we may not like THEN THEY ARE AGAINST DEMOCRACY.
Please if you want to keep FALKLANDS or reclaim MALVINAS then stop pretending you have moreal high ground... because you don't. You hypocritical bastards clinge to things you dismissed when the very people you were conquering tried to use it on their defense... spare me that bullshit
Britains settled on an empty Island and stayed there since then, that is all that happened.
None of the crimes that the USA (if that is what you hint at) might have commited in South America is related to the Falklands in any way. Your rage is understandable but utterly misguided.
Incas were settled in Peru. Mayans and Aztecs in Central America and Mexico. Self determinsm worked just fine there right?
On April 13 2013 18:20 HauntYou wrote: Painmaker, let's not start slinging mud in what's been a relatively civil discussion?
Hyperbole and caps lock really don't help make your point. You might want to step back, take a breath and wonder if you're a bit too personally invested.
The undeniable fact that the U.K., like many countries, has had a blatant disregard for the process of self-determination whenever it suits them doesn't mean their defense of self-determination is invalid. It makes it ironic, not wrong.
It's wrong in the sense that since you are the ones claiming it... then makes it right... when history has shown that we just fuck over it.
On April 13 2013 17:58 Painmaker wrote: Oh yeah? then self determination existed when you colonized and subjugated an entire continent! Self determination existed when your presidents deemed necessary to intervine domestic politics (yeah, tell me all the dictatorships of the 70's just came out of nowhere) Democracy existed when you thought it was fair to impose sanctions on other countries in continents that are thounsands of miles away from home. YAY DEMOCRACY!
OUR DEMOCRACY IS FAIR AND THEREFORE WE ARE ALLOWED TO MESS WITH THE POLITICS OF THE RESTO OF THE WORLD, but if said countries do something that we may not like THEN THEY ARE AGAINST DEMOCRACY.
Please if you want to keep FALKLANDS or reclaim MALVINAS then stop pretending you have moreal high ground... because you don't. You hypocritical bastards clinge to things you dismissed when the very people you were conquering tried to use it on their defense... spare me that bullshit
Britains settled on an empty Island and stayed there since then, that is all that happened.
None of the crimes that the USA (if that is what you hint at) might have commited in South America is related to the Falklands in any way. Your rage is understandable but utterly misguided.
You could go on... there were no chinese before china was a thing...
On April 13 2013 17:58 Painmaker wrote: Oh yeah? then self determination existed when you colonized and subjugated an entire continent! Self determination existed when your presidents deemed necessary to intervine domestic politics (yeah, tell me all the dictatorships of the 70's just came out of nowhere) Democracy existed when you thought it was fair to impose sanctions on other countries in continents that are thounsands of miles away from home. YAY DEMOCRACY!
OUR DEMOCRACY IS FAIR AND THEREFORE WE ARE ALLOWED TO MESS WITH THE POLITICS OF THE RESTO OF THE WORLD, but if said countries do something that we may not like THEN THEY ARE AGAINST DEMOCRACY.
Please if you want to keep FALKLANDS or reclaim MALVINAS then stop pretending you have moreal high ground... because you don't. You hypocritical bastards clinge to things you dismissed when the very people you were conquering tried to use it on their defense... spare me that bullshit
Britains settled on an empty Island and stayed there since then, that is all that happened.
None of the crimes that the USA (if that is what you hint at) might have commited in South America is related to the Falklands in any way. Your rage is understandable but utterly misguided.
Incas were settled in Peru. Mayans and Aztecs in Central America and Mexico. Self determinsm worked just fine there right?
So you think that America should be given back to the Indians?
Let's assume for a second that this is a sane argument. Then who should the Falkland Islands be given back to? Should the Britains just commit suicide to give the Falklands back to the rocks that lived there before them?
Then again the only reason your argument works is because there isn't enough indian power to fight over the land... if that were the case, you wouldn't be replying to this thread
On April 13 2013 18:45 Bill Murray wrote: Puru? Aztecs? Both conquered by Spain... Pizaro, and Cortez
But then the other european powers had their hand in the game and tried to have a piece of the cake... each one of them ignoring what had to be done in the first place to bring said cake to the game (ignoring is an understatement)
I have no problems with Britain having control of the Falklands, but the referendum is silly and a PR stunt, I was watching footage of the referendum on the news and the people that were voting look more British than the British themselves.
How can anyone have peoblems when britain controls the falklands with a population of some 3000 ? How does it affect the daily life of any argentinan in the slightest ? Do they have economic disadvantages because of it or what the heck do they even care ?
This argentinain power play is kust to dumb down people and redirect their anger from the political mess inside to the outside, just like North Korea or Iran does.
I mean I could understand if falkland islands where huge with 100ks of population and oil and what not that they quarrel about it, but this is just ....
Two wrongs don't make a right. Because European colonists did terrible things to the locals in South America and took their land doesn't give Argentina the right to take land from the inhabitants of an Island where they've lived for generations. No one denies what the Spaniards, Dutch, French, Belgians, British and Portuguese have done around the world but it's weird to say that everybody else gets a turn now.
On April 13 2013 18:40 Painmaker wrote: Then again the only reason your argument works is because there isn't enough indian power to fight over the land... if that were the case, you wouldn't be replying to this thread
Stop shitting up the thread with your stupid comments and multiple posts.
Atrocities committed in the past do not justify present day atrocities, you can't say "you were fine with displacing native peoples a few hundred years ago so you can't disagree with it now" and call everyone fucking hypocrites... that's insanely stupid.
On April 13 2013 19:03 Sjokola wrote: Two wrongs don't make a right. Because European colonists did terrible things to the locals in South America and took their land doesn't give Argentina the right to take land from the inhabitants of an Island where they've lived for generations. No one denies what the Spaniards, Dutch, French, Belgians, British and Portuguese have done around the world but it's weird to say that everybody else gets a turn now.
They can try, but at least they should have the military power to back it up if they claim them by force, otherwise it just politcial charade.
On April 13 2013 19:03 Sjokola wrote: Two wrongs don't make a right. Because European colonists did terrible things to the locals in South America and took their land doesn't give Argentina the right to take land from the inhabitants of an Island where they've lived for generations. No one denies what the Spaniards, Dutch, French, Belgians, British and Portuguese have done around the world but it's weird to say that everybody else gets a turn now.
They can try, but at least they should have the military power to back it up if they claim them by force, otherwise it just politcial charade.
This, and if they do, you can say it's wrong for some reason... but that reason it's not universal, it's not the truth... just as it wasn't when the Spaniards, Dutch, Belgians, British and Portuguese did it. My point being, they can't do it... we know it, they don't have the power to do it. But don't try to hide it under flase moral and "sanity" when all the powerful countries in the world just try to extend it's dominion over the rest... there's no moral ground... just power.
On April 13 2013 19:03 Sjokola wrote: Two wrongs don't make a right. Because European colonists did terrible things to the locals in South America and took their land doesn't give Argentina the right to take land from the inhabitants of an Island where they've lived for generations. No one denies what the Spaniards, Dutch, French, Belgians, British and Portuguese have done around the world but it's weird to say that everybody else gets a turn now.
They can try, but at least they should have the military power to back it up if they claim them by force, otherwise it just politcial charade.
This, and if they do, you can say it's wrong for some reason... but that reason it's not universal, it's not the truth... just as it wasn't when the Spaniards, Dutch, Belgians, British and Portuguese did it. My point being, they can't do it... we know it, they don't have the power to do it. But don't try to hide it under flase moral and "sanity" when all the powerful countries in the world just try to extend it's dominion over the rest... there's no moral ground... just power.
Are you communicating with us from like two centuries ago or do you just refuse to acknowledge the change this world and people have undergone in that time?
The only justifiable military activities in the present day are self-defence and liberation.
In case you didn't notice we gave the Falklands the chance to decide for themselves, which already is a clear case of morality triumphing over power.
On April 13 2013 18:20 HauntYou wrote: Painmaker, let's not start slinging mud in what's been a relatively civil discussion?
Hyperbole and caps lock really don't help make your point. You might want to step back, take a breath and wonder if you're a bit too personally invested.
The undeniable fact that the U.K., like many countries, has had a blatant disregard for the process of self-determination whenever it suits them doesn't mean their defense of self-determination is invalid. It makes it ironic, not wrong.
Last post for now. But yes we need mud, this whole thing is covered with it, pretending that this is just fair talks is an illusion. It's so easy to throw shit aroud and then realize everything is covered with it. But if you tell the the very people you threw shit at that shit throwing should stop, they will have doubts about it...to say the least
On April 13 2013 17:58 Painmaker wrote: Oh yeah? then self determination existed when you colonized and subjugated an entire continent! Self determination existed when your presidents deemed necessary to intervine domestic politics (yeah, tell me all the dictatorships of the 70's just came out of nowhere) Democracy existed when you thought it was fair to impose sanctions on other countries in continents that are thounsands of miles away from home. YAY DEMOCRACY!
OUR DEMOCRACY IS FAIR AND THEREFORE WE ARE ALLOWED TO MESS WITH THE POLITICS OF THE RESTO OF THE WORLD, but if said countries do something that we may not like THEN THEY ARE AGAINST DEMOCRACY.
Please if you want to keep FALKLANDS or reclaim MALVINAS then stop pretending you have moreal high ground... because you don't. You hypocritical bastards clinge to things you dismissed when the very people you were conquering tried to use it on their defense... spare me that bullshit
Britains settled on an empty Island and stayed there since then, that is all that happened.
None of the crimes that the USA (if that is what you hint at) might have commited in South America is related to the Falklands in any way. Your rage is understandable but utterly misguided.
Incas were settled in Peru. Mayans and Aztecs in Central America and Mexico. Self determinsm worked just fine there right?
self determination is a sociological concept only really developed in the last 100 years. by your logic since we once kept slaves we should always keep slaves, or since world powers strived to have empires we should just invade each other all the time.
your logic seems to forget about that thing called time.
An amusing fact is that the population of the Falklands has been living there longer than the population of Argentina has been living in Argentina as they committed genocide on the previous population. Who are the planted population usurping lands really?
Are you communicating with us from like two centuries ago or do you just refuse to acknowledge the change this world and people have undergone in that time?
Atrocities committed in the past do not justify present day atrocities
When Tenochtitlan finally fell in 1521, Cortes had been waging a two-year war against the Aztec confederacy. For the Spanish and their Indian allies, it was a war of extermination, where not death, but capture was the worst fate which awaited the warrior. It was also a war of human sacrifice, cannibalism, and human harvesting, as per Aztec tradition. Not only did the Spaniards not perform a 'tit for tat' on their enemies, they also, at great risk to their own safety, prohibited their allies from performing such rites as were regular within their warrior cultures, but which were offensive to Christian, human dignity. Upon capturing Tenochtitlan, which the Aztecs defended almost literally to the last man, the Indian allies would have exterminated the Aztecs were it not for Spanish restraint. They treated their defeated enemy chivalrously, if harshly, far better than the treatment they themselves had received.
Is there something we know today that the rude and scruffy Spanish adventurers, facing perpetual extermination from a merciless enemy, but with songs in their hearts and crosses on their breasts did not know 5 centuries ago?
I would suggest they knew far more how much their 'crusade' was motivated by greed and gold. Cortes, Pizarro, hell, Columbus weren't coming to the New World looking for evangelical opportunities. Yes the Aztecs were cruel, and in many ways so were the other native Amerindians, but try not to hold the conquistadors or the New World colonists up as holy pilgrims, please. I would also wonder what, exactly, this has to do with uninhabited islands settled continuously by Britain for centuries, but what they hey.
Also, to whoever it was that said Britain has a poor track record in respecting native wishes, please look up India, Hong Kong, Canada, Australia and near everywhere else we used to own. Yes, in many instances we invaded and took land from indigenous peoples. Yes, we gave it up peacefully when the time came. We have always respected, in modern times, the wishes of people living there. That's why we're giving Scotland the chance to decide for itself whether it wants to be a separate country, and it's why we gave the same chance to the Falklands. It's saddens me, and it's more than a little ironic, that we get labelled as a colonising power in Argentina. We're not the ones who outright ignored the referendum, and said the wishes of the islanders do not matter. That was that Argentine woman, someone else who has a tenuous grasp on actual history.
the falklands is a really tough issue, both sides have very strong and convincing points, it's hard to say which side is right or wrong, if any.
on one side we've got the british claim of self determination, which is a great claim, the people there want to remain british.
but on the other, we've got a case of forcibly taken land that was given to them by spain upon becomming independant from it in 1816. land which the UK began illegally occupying in 1833.
I mean, if we go back it's basically argentine land, that the british came, evicted the argentine settlers from, allegedly by argentina anyways i have no idea if they actually had sent settlers there prior to the english occupation or not. threatened them with greater force and barred argentines from resettling.
pretty messy situation if you ask me, but also it seems like it hurts less people for it to remain british.
I mean, if we go back it's basically argentine land, that the british came, evicted the argentine settlers from, allegedly by argentina anyways i have no idea if they actually had sent settlers there prior to the english occupation or not. threatened them with greater force and barred argentines from resettling.
so i assume you will be giving the continental united states back to the indian tribes any day now.
I would suggest they knew far more how much their 'crusade' was motivated by greed and gold. Cortes, Pizarro, hell, Columbus weren't coming to the New World looking for evangelical opportunities. Yes the Aztecs were cruel, and in many ways so were the other native Amerindians, but try not to hold the conquistadors or the New World colonists up as holy pilgrims, please. I would also wonder what, exactly, this has to do with uninhabited islands settled continuously by Britain for centuries, but what they hey.
No human action is ever dominated by a single motive. It was not Cortes' job to evangelise the Indians, that job was left to the Bishop de la Casas, who turned out to be a great political asset, since he was a great deal more tactful in dealing with the Indians than the 'fighting' Conquistadors, including his insistence that conversions under duress were useless. When back in Spain, his great contribution was arguing in favour of Indigenous Indian rights in the debate of Valladoid, a debate which he triumphed in securing Royal decree of regulations concerning the treatment of New World autochthons, decrees which were mostly ignored by the settlers.
In the case of Cortes, one prominent reason was that in Cuba, he went back on his amourous advances with the daughter of a prominent family, a family well connected with the governor, Velasquez, with whom he constantly clashed, and who had Cortes imprisoned. Cortes was 'pulled' towards Mexico by the promise of adventure and gain, but more immediately, he was pushed unto new triumphs because he could not remain where he was. Whether Cortes was personally possessed of greater cupidity than his men is debatable, but each man who went on his expedition, undoubtedly had a similarly tangled story to tell.
Pizarro was similarly an adventurer and man of chivalrous ambition, but he had the precedence of Pizarro already when he set off for Panama. Pizarro was an illegitimate and illiterate man, perhaps endowed with fewer natural abilities and instincts than Cortes, but he also had a prudential adviser in the person of Hernando de Luque, who similarly protected the Indians from the worst of Spanish cupidity and temptation.
Looking back on their history, yes, the Conquistadors risked their lives against almost hopeless odds for the promise of reward, but on other instances, they also put their lives at considerable risk for religious or chivalrous reasons, when it would have been much easier to be a profiteer without scruples. The record of their actions in Mexico and Peru shows the injustice of claiming that they were devoid of them.
The overarching point remains: when I read of the history of the Spanish in Mexico and Peru, what impressed me was not how, stranded on a continent where the dominant political language was human sacrifice, cannibalism and massacre, the Spaniards failed to live up to the example of Mother Theresa. What impressed me was how much of their own values and religious conviction they maintained under such circumstances, rather than allow the nature of the continent to assimilate them to its sanguinary ways. The Lord of the Flies thesis of humanity is best refuted by their example, and I decry the awful assumption, that their values, if not in exactly accord with our own, have to suffer five centuries of progress before they stood up to the altruism of our keyboard warriors.
I mean, if we go back it's basically argentine land, that the british came, evicted the argentine settlers from, allegedly by argentina anyways i have no idea if they actually had sent settlers there prior to the english occupation or not. threatened them with greater force and barred argentines from resettling.
so i assume you will be giving the continental united states back to the indian tribes any day now.
that gets a little complicated, especially considering they didn't make claims to the land as they didn't believe land should or could be "owned"
On April 13 2013 17:58 Painmaker wrote: Oh yeah? then self determination existed when you colonized and subjugated an entire continent! Self determination existed when your presidents deemed necessary to intervine domestic politics (yeah, tell me all the dictatorships of the 70's just came out of nowhere) Democracy existed when you thought it was fair to impose sanctions on other countries in continents that are thounsands of miles away from home. YAY DEMOCRACY!
OUR DEMOCRACY IS FAIR AND THEREFORE WE ARE ALLOWED TO MESS WITH THE POLITICS OF THE RESTO OF THE WORLD, but if said countries do something that we may not like THEN THEY ARE AGAINST DEMOCRACY.
Please if you want to keep FALKLANDS or reclaim MALVINAS then stop pretending you have moreal high ground... because you don't. You hypocritical bastards clinge to things you dismissed when the very people you were conquering tried to use it on their defense... spare me that bullshit
Britains settled on an empty Island and stayed there since then, that is all that happened.
None of the crimes that the USA (if that is what you hint at) might have commited in South America is related to the Falklands in any way. Your rage is understandable but utterly misguided.
You could go on... there were no chinese before china was a thing...
An interesting way of looking at it, Moltke. Personally I'm not one to identify with people who took such liberties with conquered populations, what with the forced conversions, treaty-breaking and executions. Both sides had pretty unpleasant people, and every now and again one or two people shine down through history because of the examples they set in trying to maintain basic human dignity in unique times of conquest and plunder. I would also point out that human sacrifice was a staple of the Aztec religion, but not necessary of South America. It was known in other religions but it seemed pretty rare for other peoples to resort to such drastic sacrifices.
Cortes isn't an example to hold up, for me. He set off in search of wealth, and because he had burned his bridges back home. It was succeed or die - I guess his bravery and perseverance cannot be questioned. But he didn't care about the natives, not one jot. He came to exploit the local politics to his advantage, set off a chain of events that caused the deaths of many natives and caused the collapse of more than one complex societies. Pizarro had a similar affect on the Incas, cheerfully ignoring promises and treaties agreed when it suited him, ransoming and using Atahualpa until he was no longer useful, then killing him and marching on the capital. Not exactly the actions of a decent man.
I agree they were products of their times, and can hardly be faulted for that. Both were money grubbing adventure-whores seeking to further their own legends at the cost of human lives, and both effectively lucked out in being able to exploit situations that paved the way for their conquests with such tiny forces. They had incredible lives, and entertaining exploits, I won't deny it, but I failed to see much in their actions that inspired me, personally.
I mean, if we go back it's basically argentine land, that the british came, evicted the argentine settlers from, allegedly by argentina anyways i have no idea if they actually had sent settlers there prior to the english occupation or not. threatened them with greater force and barred argentines from resettling.
so i assume you will be giving the continental united states back to the indian tribes any day now.
that gets a little complicated, especially considering they didn't make claims to the land as they didn't believe land should or could be "owned"
so ownership of land is based on belief not on heritage? im only being so fickle because i believe all these arguments about ownership stem from a systemically wrong viewpoint. if you want to play the historical ownership point of view then every country in the world has problems with 'ownership' as pretty much all of them have had invaders or immigrants from 1 time to another. it is simply arbitrary to conclude that argentinas claim is close enough in time but the saxons (or celts) of englands isnt, or the greeks of cyprus etc etc etc.
so we have to draw a line. and that line seems to clearly be the end of the second world war. that was the end of empire, and foreign control of nations being acceptable. so we look at the world map, and apart from really obvious cases of fuck ups like the maps drawn up by the colonial powers in africa/asia minor, we try and stick to that status quo. and in that situation the falklands are british.
any historical argument grounded before 1945 doesnt make any sense as countries were pretty much free to invade whoever they wanted based on a 'might is right' doctrine.
France establishes a base on the Falklands England establishes a base on the Falklands France leaves to appease Spain
Spain attacks the English port forcing the English to leave, England and Spain almost go to war England retakes the port
England leaves the islands due to vulnerability in international conflicts, still keeping their claim to them.
Spain destroys the English settlement on the island. Spain leaves due to international commitments, also keeping their claim (made after the British claim). Argentina makes claims to the islands. England reinhabits the islands, forcing the Argentinian administration to leave. The Falklands becomes permanently colonised by the English.
Argentina (like Spain before them) doesn't have a leg to stand on, their only argument is that the Falklands are close. And besides, 'international law' in the newly colonised Americas was so ill defined that self determination of the inhabitants is the only argument that holds any weight. That's been the basis of decolonisation for the last 50 years.
I mean, if we go back it's basically argentine land, that the british came, evicted the argentine settlers from, allegedly by argentina anyways i have no idea if they actually had sent settlers there prior to the english occupation or not. threatened them with greater force and barred argentines from resettling.
so i assume you will be giving the continental united states back to the indian tribes any day now.
that gets a little complicated, especially considering they didn't make claims to the land as they didn't believe land should or could be "owned"
so ownership of land is based on belief not on heritage? im only being so fickle because i believe all these arguments about ownership stem from a systemically wrong viewpoint. if you want to play the historical ownership point of view then every country in the world has problems with 'ownership' as pretty much all of them have had invaders or immigrants from 1 time to another. it is simply arbitrary to conclude that argentinas claim is close enough in time but the saxons (or celts) of englands isnt, or the greeks of cyprus etc etc etc.
so we have to draw a line. and that line seems to clearly be the end of the second world war. that was the end of empire, and foreign control of nations being acceptable. so we look at the world map, and apart from really obvious cases of fuck ups like the maps drawn up by the colonial powers in africa/asia minor, we try and stick to that status quo. and in that situation the falklands are british.
any historical argument grounded before 1945 doesnt make any sense as countries were pretty much free to invade whoever they wanted based on a 'might is right' doctrine.
I did say it was a very complicated issue, because of reasons like this. and that both sides had their arguments, both very reasonable ones, so it's hard to say which side is "right". but that the self determination stance of the british that they remain british because they choose to hurts real people the least.
you've got to be able to see it from both points of view, i think when you do you realize that argentina isn't exactly baseless in their claims.
I mean, if we go back it's basically argentine land, that the british came, evicted the argentine settlers from, allegedly by argentina anyways i have no idea if they actually had sent settlers there prior to the english occupation or not. threatened them with greater force and barred argentines from resettling.
so i assume you will be giving the continental united states back to the indian tribes any day now.
that gets a little complicated, especially considering they didn't make claims to the land as they didn't believe land should or could be "owned"
so ownership of land is based on belief not on heritage? im only being so fickle because i believe all these arguments about ownership stem from a systemically wrong viewpoint. if you want to play the historical ownership point of view then every country in the world has problems with 'ownership' as pretty much all of them have had invaders or immigrants from 1 time to another. it is simply arbitrary to conclude that argentinas claim is close enough in time but the saxons (or celts) of englands isnt, or the greeks of cyprus etc etc etc.
so we have to draw a line. and that line seems to clearly be the end of the second world war. that was the end of empire, and foreign control of nations being acceptable. so we look at the world map, and apart from really obvious cases of fuck ups like the maps drawn up by the colonial powers in africa/asia minor, we try and stick to that status quo. and in that situation the falklands are british.
any historical argument grounded before 1945 doesnt make any sense as countries were pretty much free to invade whoever they wanted based on a 'might is right' doctrine.
I did say it was a very complicated issue, because of reasons like this. and that both sides had their arguments, both very reasonable ones, so it's hard to say which side is "right". but that the self determination stance of the british that they remain british because they choose to hurts real people the least.
you've got to be able to see it from both points of view, i think when you do you realize that argentina isn't exactly baseless in their claims.
How would you sum up the Argentinian arguments? They inhabited the islands for about 10 years and were fully aware of conflicting claims made before their own. So the basis of their argument is... it's close to us, so we own it?
I mean, if we go back it's basically argentine land, that the british came, evicted the argentine settlers from, allegedly by argentina anyways i have no idea if they actually had sent settlers there prior to the english occupation or not. threatened them with greater force and barred argentines from resettling.
so i assume you will be giving the continental united states back to the indian tribes any day now.
that gets a little complicated, especially considering they didn't make claims to the land as they didn't believe land should or could be "owned"
so ownership of land is based on belief not on heritage? im only being so fickle because i believe all these arguments about ownership stem from a systemically wrong viewpoint. if you want to play the historical ownership point of view then every country in the world has problems with 'ownership' as pretty much all of them have had invaders or immigrants from 1 time to another. it is simply arbitrary to conclude that argentinas claim is close enough in time but the saxons (or celts) of englands isnt, or the greeks of cyprus etc etc etc.
so we have to draw a line. and that line seems to clearly be the end of the second world war. that was the end of empire, and foreign control of nations being acceptable. so we look at the world map, and apart from really obvious cases of fuck ups like the maps drawn up by the colonial powers in africa/asia minor, we try and stick to that status quo. and in that situation the falklands are british.
any historical argument grounded before 1945 doesnt make any sense as countries were pretty much free to invade whoever they wanted based on a 'might is right' doctrine.
I did say it was a very complicated issue, because of reasons like this. and that both sides had their arguments, both very reasonable ones, so it's hard to say which side is "right". but that the self determination stance of the british that they remain british because they choose to hurts real people the least.
you've got to be able to see it from both points of view, i think when you do you realize that argentina isn't exactly baseless in their claims.
How would you sum up the Argentinian arguments? They inhabited the islands for about 10 years and were fully aware of conflicting claims made before their own. So the basis of their argument is... it's close to us, so we own it?
it was given to them by spain as part of their independence. essentially it was a part of their country ever since they became a country, and then they were forcibly evicted by the british, who threatened them and did not allow them to reinhabit it, which let the british to illegally occupy part of their country. now there's just the descendants of the british left there who surprise surprise want it to stay british and claim it as their own.
to them it is a part of their country, from their founding, that's since been illegally occupied by the british, who have no legitimate claim to it and have no intention of leaving.
On March 12 2013 14:28 KwarK wrote: Basically no Argentinians have ever lived on the island. They have literally no claim beyond "Spain used to claim them and we're kinda like Spain, do you guys even speak Spanish?" and "look at a map, we're kinda close".
I mean, if we go back it's basically argentine land, that the british came, evicted the argentine settlers from, allegedly by argentina anyways i have no idea if they actually had sent settlers there prior to the english occupation or not. threatened them with greater force and barred argentines from resettling.
so i assume you will be giving the continental united states back to the indian tribes any day now.
that gets a little complicated, especially considering they didn't make claims to the land as they didn't believe land should or could be "owned"
so ownership of land is based on belief not on heritage? im only being so fickle because i believe all these arguments about ownership stem from a systemically wrong viewpoint. if you want to play the historical ownership point of view then every country in the world has problems with 'ownership' as pretty much all of them have had invaders or immigrants from 1 time to another. it is simply arbitrary to conclude that argentinas claim is close enough in time but the saxons (or celts) of englands isnt, or the greeks of cyprus etc etc etc.
so we have to draw a line. and that line seems to clearly be the end of the second world war. that was the end of empire, and foreign control of nations being acceptable. so we look at the world map, and apart from really obvious cases of fuck ups like the maps drawn up by the colonial powers in africa/asia minor, we try and stick to that status quo. and in that situation the falklands are british.
any historical argument grounded before 1945 doesnt make any sense as countries were pretty much free to invade whoever they wanted based on a 'might is right' doctrine.
I did say it was a very complicated issue, because of reasons like this. and that both sides had their arguments, both very reasonable ones, so it's hard to say which side is "right". but that the self determination stance of the british that they remain british because they choose to hurts real people the least.
you've got to be able to see it from both points of view, i think when you do you realize that argentina isn't exactly baseless in their claims.
How would you sum up the Argentinian arguments? They inhabited the islands for about 10 years and were fully aware of conflicting claims made before their own. So the basis of their argument is... it's close to us, so we own it?
it was given to them by spain as part of their independence. essentially it was a part of their country ever since they became a country, and then they were forcibly evicted by the british, who threatened them and did not allow them to reinhabit it, which let the british to illegally occupy part of their country. now there's just the descendants of the british left there who surprise surprise want it to stay british and claim it as their own.
to them it is a part of their country, from their founding, that's since been illegally occupied by the british, who have no legitimate claim to it and have no intention of leaving.
pretty much teh same as USA made 95% of their territory
Although moving your people somewhere only to claim the territory on the basis of them living there is pretty unjustifiable, it can't be undone now and it's probably better if the islands remain part of England. Measures should be taken not to let it happen again, as it only creates more tension and conflicts (Israel/Palestine).
On March 12 2013 14:28 KwarK wrote: Basically no Argentinians have ever lived on the island. They have literally no claim beyond "Spain used to claim them and we're kinda like Spain, do you guys even speak Spanish?" and "look at a map, we're kinda close".
I mean, if we go back it's basically argentine land, that the british came, evicted the argentine settlers from, allegedly by argentina anyways i have no idea if they actually had sent settlers there prior to the english occupation or not. threatened them with greater force and barred argentines from resettling.
so i assume you will be giving the continental united states back to the indian tribes any day now.
that gets a little complicated, especially considering they didn't make claims to the land as they didn't believe land should or could be "owned"
so ownership of land is based on belief not on heritage? im only being so fickle because i believe all these arguments about ownership stem from a systemically wrong viewpoint. if you want to play the historical ownership point of view then every country in the world has problems with 'ownership' as pretty much all of them have had invaders or immigrants from 1 time to another. it is simply arbitrary to conclude that argentinas claim is close enough in time but the saxons (or celts) of englands isnt, or the greeks of cyprus etc etc etc.
so we have to draw a line. and that line seems to clearly be the end of the second world war. that was the end of empire, and foreign control of nations being acceptable. so we look at the world map, and apart from really obvious cases of fuck ups like the maps drawn up by the colonial powers in africa/asia minor, we try and stick to that status quo. and in that situation the falklands are british.
any historical argument grounded before 1945 doesnt make any sense as countries were pretty much free to invade whoever they wanted based on a 'might is right' doctrine.
I did say it was a very complicated issue, because of reasons like this. and that both sides had their arguments, both very reasonable ones, so it's hard to say which side is "right". but that the self determination stance of the british that they remain british because they choose to hurts real people the least.
you've got to be able to see it from both points of view, i think when you do you realize that argentina isn't exactly baseless in their claims.
How would you sum up the Argentinian arguments? They inhabited the islands for about 10 years and were fully aware of conflicting claims made before their own. So the basis of their argument is... it's close to us, so we own it?
it was given to them by spain as part of their independence. essentially it was a part of their country ever since they became a country, and then they were forcibly evicted by the british, who threatened them and did not allow them to reinhabit it, which let the british to illegally occupy part of their country. now there's just the descendants of the british left there who surprise surprise want it to stay british and claim it as their own.
to them it is a part of their country, from their founding, that's since been illegally occupied by the british, who have no legitimate claim to it and have no intention of leaving.
pretty much teh same as USA made 95% of their territory
im not going to defend the genocide of the native americans and the robbing of their land if that's what you want.
I mean, if we go back it's basically argentine land, that the british came, evicted the argentine settlers from, allegedly by argentina anyways i have no idea if they actually had sent settlers there prior to the english occupation or not. threatened them with greater force and barred argentines from resettling.
so i assume you will be giving the continental united states back to the indian tribes any day now.
that gets a little complicated, especially considering they didn't make claims to the land as they didn't believe land should or could be "owned"
so ownership of land is based on belief not on heritage? im only being so fickle because i believe all these arguments about ownership stem from a systemically wrong viewpoint. if you want to play the historical ownership point of view then every country in the world has problems with 'ownership' as pretty much all of them have had invaders or immigrants from 1 time to another. it is simply arbitrary to conclude that argentinas claim is close enough in time but the saxons (or celts) of englands isnt, or the greeks of cyprus etc etc etc.
so we have to draw a line. and that line seems to clearly be the end of the second world war. that was the end of empire, and foreign control of nations being acceptable. so we look at the world map, and apart from really obvious cases of fuck ups like the maps drawn up by the colonial powers in africa/asia minor, we try and stick to that status quo. and in that situation the falklands are british.
any historical argument grounded before 1945 doesnt make any sense as countries were pretty much free to invade whoever they wanted based on a 'might is right' doctrine.
I did say it was a very complicated issue, because of reasons like this. and that both sides had their arguments, both very reasonable ones, so it's hard to say which side is "right". but that the self determination stance of the british that they remain british because they choose to hurts real people the least.
you've got to be able to see it from both points of view, i think when you do you realize that argentina isn't exactly baseless in their claims.
How would you sum up the Argentinian arguments? They inhabited the islands for about 10 years and were fully aware of conflicting claims made before their own. So the basis of their argument is... it's close to us, so we own it?
it was given to them by spain as part of their independence. essentially it was a part of their country ever since they became a country, and then they were forcibly evicted by the british, who threatened them and did not allow them to reinhabit it, which let the british to illegally occupy part of their country. now there's just the descendants of the british left there who surprise surprise want it to stay british and claim it as their own.
to them it is a part of their country, from their founding, that's since been illegally occupied by the british, who have no legitimate claim to it and have no intention of leaving.
If the Spanish claim to the islands was without merit then they had no basis on which to give them to Argentina in the first place. I could promise you the Tower of London in my will but it wouldn't be easy for you to collect.
On April 13 2013 21:13 MoltkeWarding wrote: The overarching point remains: when I read of the history of the Spanish in Mexico and Peru, what impressed me was not how, stranded on a continent where the dominant political language was human sacrifice, cannibalism and massacre, the Spaniards failed to live up to the example of Mother Theresa. What impressed me was how much of their own values and religious conviction they maintained under such circumstances, rather than allow the nature of the continent to assimilate them to its sanguinary ways. The Lord of the Flies thesis of humanity is best refuted by their example, and I decry the awful assumption, that their values, if not in exactly accord with our own, have to suffer five centuries of progress before they stood up to the altruism of our keyboard warriors.
I wasn't suggesting that people in times gone by haven't shown some, equal or even more strength of character than what we see nowadays, I was pointing out that rampant invasion and slavery is far less common than it used to be, and I think you know that ...
On April 13 2013 17:58 Painmaker wrote: Oh yeah? then self determination existed when you colonized and subjugated an entire continent! Self determination existed when your presidents deemed necessary to intervine domestic politics (yeah, tell me all the dictatorships of the 70's just came out of nowhere) Democracy existed when you thought it was fair to impose sanctions on other countries in continents that are thounsands of miles away from home. YAY DEMOCRACY!
OUR DEMOCRACY IS FAIR AND THEREFORE WE ARE ALLOWED TO MESS WITH THE POLITICS OF THE RESTO OF THE WORLD, but if said countries do something that we may not like THEN THEY ARE AGAINST DEMOCRACY.
Please if you want to keep FALKLANDS or reclaim MALVINAS then stop pretending you have moreal high ground... because you don't. You hypocritical bastards clinge to things you dismissed when the very people you were conquering tried to use it on their defense... spare me that bullshit
Britains settled on an empty Island and stayed there since then, that is all that happened.
None of the crimes that the USA (if that is what you hint at) might have commited in South America is related to the Falklands in any way. Your rage is understandable but utterly misguided.
Incas were settled in Peru. Mayans and Aztecs in Central America and Mexico. Self determinsm worked just fine there right?
self determination is a sociological concept only really developed in the last 100 years. by your logic since we once kept slaves we should always keep slaves, or since world powers strived to have empires we should just invade each other all the time.
your logic seems to forget about that thing called time.
On April 13 2013 22:09 Sanctimonius wrote: An interesting way of looking at it, Moltke. Personally I'm not one to identify with people who took such liberties with conquered populations, what with the forced conversions, treaty-breaking and executions. Both sides had pretty unpleasant people, and every now and again one or two people shine down through history because of the examples they set in trying to maintain basic human dignity in unique times of conquest and plunder. I would also point out that human sacrifice was a staple of the Aztec religion, but not necessary of South America. It was known in other religions but it seemed pretty rare for other peoples to resort to such drastic sacrifices.
Cortes isn't an example to hold up, for me. He set off in search of wealth, and because he had burned his bridges back home. It was succeed or die - I guess his bravery and perseverance cannot be questioned. But he didn't care about the natives, not one jot. He came to exploit the local politics to his advantage, set off a chain of events that caused the deaths of many natives and caused the collapse of more than one complex societies. Pizarro had a similar affect on the Incas, cheerfully ignoring promises and treaties agreed when it suited him, ransoming and using Atahualpa until he was no longer useful, then killing him and marching on the capital. Not exactly the actions of a decent man.
I agree they were products of their times, and can hardly be faulted for that. Both were money grubbing adventure-whores seeking to further their own legends at the cost of human lives, and both effectively lucked out in being able to exploit situations that paved the way for their conquests with such tiny forces. They had incredible lives, and entertaining exploits, I won't deny it, but I failed to see much in their actions that inspired me, personally.
The Inca also used human sacrifice, although their religious customs were not as centred on warring as the Aztecs. The most notorious institution of theirs was the sacrifice of children, who were held in honour and fattened in preparation for the occasion.
When Pizarro's army drew up to the Inca camp next to Caxamalaca, they had descended a long trek through the Andes. Having reached the valley, they were in a strange country with the mountains at their backs. In front of them was the Inca Emperor, with 80 000 men. To confront the army in direct battle would not have obtained victory; as unless the Spaniards captured the Inca Emperor, the war would continue until the Spaniards were defeated by attrition. In the circumstances, subterfuge seemed to offer the only opportunity for survival, if the Inca's intentions were hostile.
The question remains: what would have happened if the Spaniards had simply submitted to trust the Inca. Atahualpa did not expect such deceit from the Spaniards, else he would not have entered the Spanish quarters relatively unprotected. This is frequently cited as evidence of his good faith. At the same time, such trust could probably be understood by placing them within the cultural norms of the Incas. The Spaniards, being surrounded by the Inca army, was probably thought in no condition to offer injury to the Inca, and especially not the capital offense of daring to assault the person of the Monarch. The principle of 'decapitation strikes' against the enemy was unknown in Inca warfare, and especially not through the violation of embassy or rules of hospitality.
In sum, Pizarro's men behaved badly in abducting Atahualpa and slaughtering his retainers. In doing so they violated the ethical norms of both cultures. But it's quite possible that in doing so, they saved their own lives. In retrospect, personal conduct displayed in both the abduction of Montezuma and Atahualpa are condemnable, and sets a blot upon the record of both accounts. But the question remains: how are we different? How would we have behaved in such circumstances as were faced by Pizarro's men? Once you accept that most men, in all ages, are neither angels nor beasts, you can more peacefully dispense with the self-satisfaction of role-playing Good by stamping upon the Evil memories of your ancestors.
Why am I talking about Mexico and Peru? Well, because Argentina was almost empty in the 16th century. If you want my take on it, the division among common people can be boiled down to whether they like or dislike England. Many of the positions we take in politics we take by derivative, and almost always when the issue at stake is an insignificant one. People generally take their 'stands' on issues which can be traced back to three or four fundamental ideas about the world. And one of the most fundamental ideas of the modern world is the Idea of England.
It's always struck me that the historical arguments, while interesting, aren't necessary for establishing a British claim to the islands. Even if we imagine for the sake of argument that the islands were Argentinian and the occupation was illegal. If the Islas Malvinas voted almost unanimously in a referendum to leave Argentina, join the UK and rename themselves The Falkland Islands what argument would there possibly be for preventing them from having their way?
I mean, if we go back it's basically argentine land, that the british came, evicted the argentine settlers from, allegedly by argentina anyways i have no idea if they actually had sent settlers there prior to the english occupation or not. threatened them with greater force and barred argentines from resettling.
so i assume you will be giving the continental united states back to the indian tribes any day now.
that gets a little complicated, especially considering they didn't make claims to the land as they didn't believe land should or could be "owned"
so ownership of land is based on belief not on heritage? im only being so fickle because i believe all these arguments about ownership stem from a systemically wrong viewpoint. if you want to play the historical ownership point of view then every country in the world has problems with 'ownership' as pretty much all of them have had invaders or immigrants from 1 time to another. it is simply arbitrary to conclude that argentinas claim is close enough in time but the saxons (or celts) of englands isnt, or the greeks of cyprus etc etc etc.
so we have to draw a line. and that line seems to clearly be the end of the second world war. that was the end of empire, and foreign control of nations being acceptable. so we look at the world map, and apart from really obvious cases of fuck ups like the maps drawn up by the colonial powers in africa/asia minor, we try and stick to that status quo. and in that situation the falklands are british.
any historical argument grounded before 1945 doesnt make any sense as countries were pretty much free to invade whoever they wanted based on a 'might is right' doctrine.
I did say it was a very complicated issue, because of reasons like this. and that both sides had their arguments, both very reasonable ones, so it's hard to say which side is "right". but that the self determination stance of the british that they remain british because they choose to hurts real people the least.
you've got to be able to see it from both points of view, i think when you do you realize that argentina isn't exactly baseless in their claims.
How would you sum up the Argentinian arguments? They inhabited the islands for about 10 years and were fully aware of conflicting claims made before their own. So the basis of their argument is... it's close to us, so we own it?
it was given to them by spain as part of their independence. essentially it was a part of their country ever since they became a country, and then they were forcibly evicted by the british, who threatened them and did not allow them to reinhabit it, which let the british to illegally occupy part of their country. now there's just the descendants of the british left there who surprise surprise want it to stay british and claim it as their own.
to them it is a part of their country, from their founding, that's since been illegally occupied by the british, who have no legitimate claim to it and have no intention of leaving.
it was given to them by spain as part of their independence. essentially it was a part of their country ever since they became a country, and then they were forcibly evicted by the british, who threatened them and did not allow them to reinhabit it, which let the british to illegally occupy part of their country. now there's just the descendants of the british left there who surprise surprise want it to stay british and claim it as their own
Lol realy? i didnt knew this at all. Then the argentinian claim on the islands is extremely strong imo and england has no leg to stand on at all.
"If the Islas Malvinas voted almost unanimously in a referendum to leave Argentina, join the UK and rename themselves The Falkland Islands what argument would there possibly be for preventing them from having their way?"
The argument that citizens are not allowed to decide to wich state they want to belong (for manny good reasons),its not their decission to make.
On April 13 2013 17:58 Painmaker wrote: Oh yeah? then self determination existed when you colonized and subjugated an entire continent! Self determination existed when your presidents deemed necessary to intervine domestic politics (yeah, tell me all the dictatorships of the 70's just came out of nowhere) Democracy existed when you thought it was fair to impose sanctions on other countries in continents that are thounsands of miles away from home. YAY DEMOCRACY!
OUR DEMOCRACY IS FAIR AND THEREFORE WE ARE ALLOWED TO MESS WITH THE POLITICS OF THE RESTO OF THE WORLD, but if said countries do something that we may not like THEN THEY ARE AGAINST DEMOCRACY.
Please if you want to keep FALKLANDS or reclaim MALVINAS then stop pretending you have moreal high ground... because you don't. You hypocritical bastards clinge to things you dismissed when the very people you were conquering tried to use it on their defense... spare me that bullshit
Britains settled on an empty Island and stayed there since then, that is all that happened.
None of the crimes that the USA (if that is what you hint at) might have commited in South America is related to the Falklands in any way. Your rage is understandable but utterly misguided.
Incas were settled in Peru. Mayans and Aztecs in Central America and Mexico. Self determinsm worked just fine there right?
No, the native populations were genocided by the ancestors of the current Argentinians. What people forget is that Argentina is no less of a colonial imperial state than the United States, their relative poverty and childlike nation does not change that. The dispute over the Falklands is no more than one colonial nation trying to bully another out of the land owned and lived on for generations and if you think the villain of the story is Britain then you need your head examined. The current Argentine government is showing the same respect for the self determination of the native Falklanders as their ancestors showed to the native people of South America. Same shit, same colonial power, it's just 200 years later people stand up for the rights of the bullied indigenous people.
I mean, if we go back it's basically argentine land, that the british came, evicted the argentine settlers from, allegedly by argentina anyways i have no idea if they actually had sent settlers there prior to the english occupation or not. threatened them with greater force and barred argentines from resettling.
so i assume you will be giving the continental united states back to the indian tribes any day now.
that gets a little complicated, especially considering they didn't make claims to the land as they didn't believe land should or could be "owned"
so ownership of land is based on belief not on heritage? im only being so fickle because i believe all these arguments about ownership stem from a systemically wrong viewpoint. if you want to play the historical ownership point of view then every country in the world has problems with 'ownership' as pretty much all of them have had invaders or immigrants from 1 time to another. it is simply arbitrary to conclude that argentinas claim is close enough in time but the saxons (or celts) of englands isnt, or the greeks of cyprus etc etc etc.
so we have to draw a line. and that line seems to clearly be the end of the second world war. that was the end of empire, and foreign control of nations being acceptable. so we look at the world map, and apart from really obvious cases of fuck ups like the maps drawn up by the colonial powers in africa/asia minor, we try and stick to that status quo. and in that situation the falklands are british.
any historical argument grounded before 1945 doesnt make any sense as countries were pretty much free to invade whoever they wanted based on a 'might is right' doctrine.
I did say it was a very complicated issue, because of reasons like this. and that both sides had their arguments, both very reasonable ones, so it's hard to say which side is "right". but that the self determination stance of the british that they remain british because they choose to hurts real people the least.
you've got to be able to see it from both points of view, i think when you do you realize that argentina isn't exactly baseless in their claims.
How would you sum up the Argentinian arguments? They inhabited the islands for about 10 years and were fully aware of conflicting claims made before their own. So the basis of their argument is... it's close to us, so we own it?
it was given to them by spain as part of their independence. essentially it was a part of their country ever since they became a country, and then they were forcibly evicted by the british, who threatened them and did not allow them to reinhabit it, which let the british to illegally occupy part of their country. now there's just the descendants of the british left there who surprise surprise want it to stay british and claim it as their own.
to them it is a part of their country, from their founding, that's since been illegally occupied by the british, who have no legitimate claim to it and have no intention of leaving.
it was given to them by spain as part of their independence. essentially it was a part of their country ever since they became a country, and then they were forcibly evicted by the british, who threatened them and did not allow them to reinhabit it, which let the british to illegally occupy part of their country. now there's just the descendants of the british left there who surprise surprise want it to stay british and claim it as their own
Lol realy? i didnt knew this at all. Then the argentinian claim on the islands is extremely strong imo and england has no leg to stand on at all.
If the Islas Malvinas voted almost unanimously in a referendum to leave Argentina, join the UK and rename themselves The Falkland Islands what argument would there possibly be for preventing them from having their way?
The argument that citizens are not allowed to decide to wich state they want to belong,its not their decission.
Of course it is the decision of the citizens. That is democracy; that is what Europe stands for. Spain didn't have any basis for claiming the Falklands except that they were close to the territory they had already claimed (e.g. Argentina). Their argument 'we claimed Argentina, that includes the Falklands despite the fact that we did not discover or settle these islands', doesn't hold up.
For reference, they were first discovered by the Portuguese, then visited multiple times by the British and named, then claimed by France/Britain.
I mean, if we go back it's basically argentine land, that the british came, evicted the argentine settlers from, allegedly by argentina anyways i have no idea if they actually had sent settlers there prior to the english occupation or not. threatened them with greater force and barred argentines from resettling.
so i assume you will be giving the continental united states back to the indian tribes any day now.
that gets a little complicated, especially considering they didn't make claims to the land as they didn't believe land should or could be "owned"
so ownership of land is based on belief not on heritage? im only being so fickle because i believe all these arguments about ownership stem from a systemically wrong viewpoint. if you want to play the historical ownership point of view then every country in the world has problems with 'ownership' as pretty much all of them have had invaders or immigrants from 1 time to another. it is simply arbitrary to conclude that argentinas claim is close enough in time but the saxons (or celts) of englands isnt, or the greeks of cyprus etc etc etc.
so we have to draw a line. and that line seems to clearly be the end of the second world war. that was the end of empire, and foreign control of nations being acceptable. so we look at the world map, and apart from really obvious cases of fuck ups like the maps drawn up by the colonial powers in africa/asia minor, we try and stick to that status quo. and in that situation the falklands are british.
any historical argument grounded before 1945 doesnt make any sense as countries were pretty much free to invade whoever they wanted based on a 'might is right' doctrine.
I did say it was a very complicated issue, because of reasons like this. and that both sides had their arguments, both very reasonable ones, so it's hard to say which side is "right". but that the self determination stance of the british that they remain british because they choose to hurts real people the least.
you've got to be able to see it from both points of view, i think when you do you realize that argentina isn't exactly baseless in their claims.
How would you sum up the Argentinian arguments? They inhabited the islands for about 10 years and were fully aware of conflicting claims made before their own. So the basis of their argument is... it's close to us, so we own it?
it was given to them by spain as part of their independence. essentially it was a part of their country ever since they became a country, and then they were forcibly evicted by the british, who threatened them and did not allow them to reinhabit it, which let the british to illegally occupy part of their country. now there's just the descendants of the british left there who surprise surprise want it to stay british and claim it as their own.
to them it is a part of their country, from their founding, that's since been illegally occupied by the british, who have no legitimate claim to it and have no intention of leaving.
it was given to them by spain as part of their independence. essentially it was a part of their country ever since they became a country, and then they were forcibly evicted by the british, who threatened them and did not allow them to reinhabit it, which let the british to illegally occupy part of their country. now there's just the descendants of the british left there who surprise surprise want it to stay british and claim it as their own
Lol realy? i didnt knew this at all. Then the argentinian claim on the islands is extremely strong imo and england has no leg to stand on at all.
"If the Islas Malvinas voted almost unanimously in a referendum to leave Argentina, join the UK and rename themselves The Falkland Islands what argument would there possibly be for preventing them from having their way?"
The argument that citizens are not allowed to decide to wich state they want to belong (for manny good reasons),its not their decission to make.
If it were true then maybe. But the British did not evict anyone because there was no one there to evict. The British also did not recognize the islands as belonging to Spain. How can someone give away something that they do not own?
Also, the British government thinks that it's citizens are allowed to vote on which country they belong to. The Falklanders got their vote and the Scottish get their vote next year. The Welsh and Northern Irish do not currently want a vote.
On April 14 2013 01:33 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote: An awful lot of weird people on TL who claim to be fans of democracy are being completely anti democratic in this case.
I guess that's prerogative of leftist to always support the 'little guy' (in this case colonial Argentina) even when they're blatantly in the wrong.
Lets just bring left vs right into everything and try to twist it to support our own opinions...
How is argentinia wrong? This is not about argentinia beeing a terrible country btw, that should be completely irrelevant and this is also not about wanting to support the underdog.
If spain gave them the islands when they became independant, then it are their islands? Spain was a super power in thoose days and european countrys shuffled around colonys now and then. If spain got the islands from france (all following the laws of that time and with the majority of superpowers of thoose days agreeing with it (spain and france definatly must have agreed)) then it are spains islands and if spain then decides to give them to argentina as part of their independance it are argentinias islands. Its just because this all happend hunderds of years ago and it now is more or less a status quo, that the british think they can pull this off. If denmark would give greenland full independance, and the next day the brits invade it and start making settlements there and chasing away the current population and then hold a referendum noone would accept it. I dont want to see the islands become argentinian at all btw but this is more about who is fundamentally right or wrong.
When we allow citizens to decide upon wich state they should belong manny countrys will fall apart. Even the usa will fall apart eventually in that case. Rich areas of countrys will want to become independant from the poor areas of the country. Alaska could become a state itself with middle east like wealth for all its citizens, leaving the south of america to take care of itself.
Strange, this notion of Spain giving the islands to Argentina. Spain didn't possess the islands. They didn't have a permanent residence there. They were granting Argentina the rights to something they had no right to. Why does this give Argentina a claim to the islands? It wouldn't work in any other legal situation, so why does it here?
On April 14 2013 01:42 Rassy wrote: How is argentinia wrong? This is not about argentinia beeing a terrible country btw, that should be completely irrelevant and this is also not about wanting to support the underdog.
If spain gave them the islands when they became independant, then it are their islands? Spain was a super power in thoose days and european countrys shuffled around colonys now and then. If spain got the islands from france (all following the laws of that time and with the majority of superpowers of thoose days agreeing with it (spain and france definatly must have agreed)) then it are spains islands and if spain then decides to give them to argentina as part of their independance it are argentinias islands. Its just because this all happend hunderds of years ago and it now is more or less a status quo, that the british think they can pull this off. If denmark would give greenland full independance, and the next day the brits invade it and start making settlements there and chasing away the current population and then hold a referendum noone would accept it. I dont want to see the islands become argentinian at all btw but this is more about who is fundamentally right or wrong.
By your logic:
Spain got them from France - they're Spanish England got them from Spain - they're English.
Well at least spain and france, who where both superpowers in thoose days must have agreed on spain getting the islands from france? then the only ones to object as superpower are the english (who where at war with spain and/or france all the time) for me the vote of spain and france together would weigh more then the vote of the english (even though i love england way more then i love france or spain)
By your logic:
Spain got them from France - they're Spanish England got them from Spain - they're English.
Think things through please.
Well there are 2 things There is the reasonable argument (wich for me is proximity and for others is letting the citizens decide) and there is the technical argument wich goes back to the law. The technical argument would give the right to the islands to argentinia based on what i know now (wich isnt that much i have to admit), and for me the reasonable argument also would give them to argentinia though i have small doubts there i have to admit.
@ below: ok i see what you mean now and you do have a point. We should then look whos claim on the islands was more reasonable at that time, the english one or spanish one. Based on what i know now it would be the spanish one, because there where no brits on the island at that time and the spanish actually held control, and also because a majority of the superpowers of that time agreed with it. The spanish and portugal had control of pretty much all of south america at that time i think and i have never heard of an english colony there, so i am inclined to believe that spains claim on the islands is the more reasonable.
On April 14 2013 01:51 Rassy wrote: Well at least spain and france, who where both superpowers in thoose days must have agreed on spain getting the islands from france? then the only ones to object as superpower are the english (who where at war with spain and/or france all the time) for me the vote of spain and france together would weigh more then the vote of the english (even though i love england way more then i love france or spain)
By your logic:
Spain got them from France - they're Spanish England got them from Spain - they're English.
Think things through please.
Well there are 2 things There is the reasonable argument (wich for me is proximity and for others is letting the citizens decide) and there is the technical argument wich goes back to the law. The technical argument would give the right to the islands to argentinia based on what i know now (wich isnt that much i have to admit), and for me the reasonable argument also would give them to argentinia though i have small doubts there i have to admit.
Two people (A, B) claim an island.
One person (A) transfers their claim to a third party (C). This third party (C) later transfers that claim to a fourth party (D).
Just because A has transferred their claim to someone else doesn't mean B no longer has a claim to the island.
Also, proximity isn't a good argument, it's hundreds of miles from Argentina.
On April 14 2013 01:51 Rassy wrote: Well at least spain and france, who where both superpowers in thoose days must have agreed on spain getting the islands from france? then the only ones to object as superpower are the english (who where at war with spain and/or france all the time) for me the vote of spain and france together would weigh more then the vote of the english (even though i love england way more then i love france or spain)
By your logic:
Spain got them from France - they're Spanish England got them from Spain - they're English.
Think things through please.
Well there are 2 things There is the reasonable argument (wich for me is proximity and for others is letting the citizens decide) and there is the technical argument wich goes back to the law. The technical argument would give the right to the islands to argentinia based on what i know now (wich isnt that much i have to admit), and for me the reasonable argument also would give them to argentinia though i have small doubts there i have to admit.
Two people (A, B) claim an island.
One person (A) transfers their claim to a third party (C). This third party (C) later transfers that claim to a fourth party (D).
Just because A has transferred their claim to someone else doesn't mean B no longer has a claim to the island.
Also, proximity isn't a good argument, it's hundreds of miles from Argentina.
Spain never transferred their claims to the Falklands to Argentina.
On April 14 2013 01:51 Rassy wrote: Well at least spain and france, who where both superpowers in thoose days must have agreed on spain getting the islands from france? then the only ones to object as superpower are the english (who where at war with spain and/or france all the time) for me the vote of spain and france together would weigh more then the vote of the english (even though i love england way more then i love france or spain)
By your logic:
Spain got them from France - they're Spanish England got them from Spain - they're English.
Think things through please.
Well there are 2 things There is the reasonable argument (wich for me is proximity and for others is letting the citizens decide) and there is the technical argument wich goes back to the law. The technical argument would give the right to the islands to argentinia based on what i know now (wich isnt that much i have to admit), and for me the reasonable argument also would give them to argentinia though i have small doubts there i have to admit.
Two people (A, B) claim an island.
One person (A) transfers their claim to a third party (C). This third party (C) later transfers that claim to a fourth party (D).
Just because A has transferred their claim to someone else doesn't mean B no longer has a claim to the island.
Also, proximity isn't a good argument, it's hundreds of miles from Argentina.
Spain never transferred their claims to the Falklands to Argentina.
Regardless, my post was oriented more towards him saying that since France gave it to Spain somehow that made England's claim invalid.
On April 14 2013 01:51 Rassy wrote: Well at least spain and france, who where both superpowers in thoose days must have agreed on spain getting the islands from france? then the only ones to object as superpower are the english (who where at war with spain and/or france all the time) for me the vote of spain and france together would weigh more then the vote of the english (even though i love england way more then i love france or spain)
By your logic:
Spain got them from France - they're Spanish England got them from Spain - they're English.
Think things through please.
Well there are 2 things There is the reasonable argument (wich for me is proximity and for others is letting the citizens decide) and there is the technical argument wich goes back to the law. The technical argument would give the right to the islands to argentinia based on what i know now (wich isnt that much i have to admit), and for me the reasonable argument also would give them to argentinia though i have small doubts there i have to admit.
@ below: ok i see what you mean now and you do have a point. We should then look whos claim on the islands was more reasonable at that time, the english one or spanish one. Based on what i know now it would be the spanish one, because there where no brits on the island at that time and the spanish actually held control, and also because a majority of the superpowers of that time agreed with it. The spanish and portugal had control of pretty much all of south america at that time i think and i have never heard of an english colony there, so i am inclined to believe that spains claim on the islands is the more reasonable.
Although Britain first landed on, named, mapped and colonised the islands? The Spanish claim was made after the British were already established there, the Spanish 'conquered' the islands by destroying the English settlement.
At any rate, this has nothing to do with Spain. Spain respects Gibraltar's right to self determination. Argentina made their own separate attempts to claim the islands, none of which were legal or successful.
Isn't it completely irrelevant in what order the island was claimed by whom? In my humble and neutral opinion, the current generation of population was born there (as in, they are no conquerors; in fact, their families have lived there since 1830ish) and they clearly state that they wish to be part of UK. Hence, there is nothing more to discuss - anything beyond that, might be onyl motivated by a chauvinistic claim to territory or, more realistically, a claim to the resources that are located there. That's called conquest.
If we on mainland Europe started with the whole nonsense of "but two hundred years ago this piece of land belonged to my country" then we'd have hundreds of wars at our hand.
On April 14 2013 03:36 ACrow wrote: Isn't it completely irrelevant in what order the island was claimed by whom? In my humble and neutral opinion, the current generation of population was born there (as in, they are no conquerors; in fact, their families have lived there since 1830ish) and they clearly state that they wish to be part of UK. Hence, there is nothing more to discuss - anything beyond that, might be onyl motivated by a chauvinistic claim to territory or, more realistically, a claim to the resources that are located there. That's called conquest.
If we on mainland Europe started with the whole nonsense of "but two hundred years ago this piece of land belonged to my country" then we'd have hundreds of wars at our hand.
I fully agree. Check a map of Europe at the time. Heck it was just after the American Independence War, so if you draw the line at 240 years the US wouldn't exist. Which I think some of them might object to.
Historical claim is all nice and dandy but most countries has released parts of their historical claims since WW2 and not increased them.
I am with the camp for letting the people living there decide. If you want a country 20x20 km large then fine for you. Don't expect to live well though since you aren't in any international trade treaty.
lol this thread came back while I was away from internet for a few days. I don't think I have much to add at this point. I have already made my point that "self-determination" can be a dangerous argument. UK's claim sounds more solid, but self-determination is/should not be the ultimate decider as I have explained from 2nd page on. I wouldn't go as far to say refereundum is irrelevant, but it doesn't have much to with this territorial dispute. UK's claim still stands EVEN IF the referendum were in favor for Argentina or vice versa.
On April 14 2013 14:51 Orek wrote: lol this thread came back while I was away from internet for a few days. I don't think I have much to add at this point. I have already made my point that "self-determination" can be a dangerous argument. UK's claim sounds more solid, but self-determination is/should not be the ultimate decider as I have explained from 2nd page on. I wouldn't go as far to say refereundum is irrelevant, but it doesn't have much to with this territorial dispute. UK's claim still stands EVEN IF the referendum were in favor for Argentina or vice versa.
No.
Our claim is "the people want to stay with us".
Self determination is the only, and thus the ultimate, decider.
On April 14 2013 14:51 Orek wrote: lol this thread came back while I was away from internet for a few days. I don't think I have much to add at this point. I have already made my point that "self-determination" can be a dangerous argument. UK's claim sounds more solid, but self-determination is/should not be the ultimate decider as I have explained from 2nd page on. I wouldn't go as far to say refereundum is irrelevant, but it doesn't have much to with this territorial dispute. UK's claim still stands EVEN IF the referendum were in favor for Argentina or vice versa.
No.
Our claim is "the people want to stay with us".
Self determination is the only, and thus the ultimate, decider.
Yet it is not considered such an ultimate decider in the case of regions wanting to break free. While it might not be the most clearcut case, just to stay on UK issues, what about Scottish self-determination? Would you support Scottish independence? Because the main British political parties sure wouldn't.
On April 14 2013 14:51 Orek wrote: lol this thread came back while I was away from internet for a few days. I don't think I have much to add at this point. I have already made my point that "self-determination" can be a dangerous argument. UK's claim sounds more solid, but self-determination is/should not be the ultimate decider as I have explained from 2nd page on. I wouldn't go as far to say refereundum is irrelevant, but it doesn't have much to with this territorial dispute. UK's claim still stands EVEN IF the referendum were in favor for Argentina or vice versa.
No.
Our claim is "the people want to stay with us".
Self determination is the only, and thus the ultimate, decider.
Yet it is not considered such an ultimate decider in the case of regions wanting to break free. While it might not be the most clearcut case, just to stay on UK issues, what about Scottish self-determination? Would you support Scottish independence? Because the main British political parties sure wouldn't.
Are you serious? Scotland will hold a referendum in 2014 and if they vote for independence they will be granted it a few years later. The UK government and all of the political parties have already agreed to grant independence to Scotland but only if the majority of the Scottish people vote for it. They even let the Scottish National Party set the wording of the question, the date of the vote and the date of the independence if the vote is a yes.
It is expected that the Scottish people will vote No, however.
On April 14 2013 14:51 Orek wrote: lol this thread came back while I was away from internet for a few days. I don't think I have much to add at this point. I have already made my point that "self-determination" can be a dangerous argument. UK's claim sounds more solid, but self-determination is/should not be the ultimate decider as I have explained from 2nd page on. I wouldn't go as far to say refereundum is irrelevant, but it doesn't have much to with this territorial dispute. UK's claim still stands EVEN IF the referendum were in favor for Argentina or vice versa.
No.
Our claim is "the people want to stay with us".
Self determination is the only, and thus the ultimate, decider.
Yet it is not considered such an ultimate decider in the case of regions wanting to break free. While it might not be the most clearcut case, just to stay on UK issues, what about Scottish self-determination? Would you support Scottish independence? Because the main British political parties sure wouldn't.
It sure is, if the Scottish vote for independence they will get independence. The British government doesn't want it, but wont stop it if it's what the Scotts want, the referendums coming.
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.
Which is why Obama wont back Britain here because he wants your oil companies to share in the profits.
The oil was recently found relatively, we defended the islands before this reserve was known about
I'm Ex royal navy and I now work in Seismic oil exploration, so I have a few things to say about this.
This is wrong actually. The Oil was known to be there a while before the Falklands war. But the oil is rather deep down and the technology wasn't advanced enough to get to most of it. Recent advances have been made in drilling techniques that allows much greater access to the reserves. Hence the new claims coming from Argentina over sovereignty. All the fields are now up for grabs.
The referendum was a complete farce. Ask British people if they want to stay British, they are most likely going to say yes. It was a PR stunt, it means nothing really.
But, I do agree with you, this is 100% about oil. I've been to the Falklands, it's a desolate wasteland. It's really out of the way (From England). The only reason to fight so hard over it, is the oil, plain and simple.
IMO though, Obama won't back England for more of a political reason. They don't really want to shit all over south america by siding with us do they? They kinda stuck in the middle here.
this kind of thing needs a better framework to get solved.
usually the conflict arises due to colonial legacy which results in a proximate territory to a colonial country with residents from the colonizing country living there long term. so in this situation the colony residents have their personal right to live on the land in conflict with some grand historical unfairness felt by the nationalistic colonial country nearby over claim to the resources found on the piece of island/territory.
without a way of recognizing both of these interests and arguments, a conflict will proceed with each side only advancing their own argument with no middle ground. the result is that the probability of armed conflict and tension rise, while the space for constructive and cooperative agreement get closed.
britain can administer the islands and grant argentina some stake in the resource of the island.
On April 16 2013 07:11 oneofthem wrote: this kind of thing needs a better framework to get solved.
usually the conflict arises due to colonial legacy which results in a proximate territory to a colonial country with residents from the colonizing country living there long term. so in this situation the colony residents have their personal right to live on the land in conflict with some grand historical unfairness felt by the nationalistic colonial country nearby over claim to the resources found on the piece of island/territory.
without a way of recognizing both of these interests and arguments, a conflict will proceed with each side only advancing their own argument with no middle ground. the result is that the probability of armed conflict and tension rise, while the space for constructive and cooperative agreement get closed.
britain can administer the islands and grant argentina some stake in the resource of the island.
Britain and Argentina actually did agree to a method to share resources of the islands in 1995, and Argentina withdrew in 2007. There really isn't that much need for a framework because there aren't really that many previously-uninhabited islands with a colonial history that are closeish but not in the recognized EEZ of the nearest country. I'm not sure if there are really any other islands anywhere with a remotely comparable situation to that in the Falklands.
Haven't read the thread, just the OP, so if this has already been said, I apologize.
The Argentineans really don't care at all about a referendum, because they claim that the British settlements of the 19th century were illegal in the first place. They claim that when Argentina won their independence, the Malvinas were part of that territory, which got occupied by the British.
I think it's a lot more complicated than that and I understand both sides
On the one hand, I think that there is something to be said for the Argentinean point of view. Compare it to Israel's settlements in the West Bank (or how hard it was to force them to give up the settlements in Gaza). These are illegal settlements of occupied territory. How is the Falklands any different, except that it happened 200 years ago instead of 30?
On the other hand, just because you claim territory doesn't mean it should be yours, regardless of historical precedent (like I feel Tibet is unrightfully occupied by China and am glad Taiwan is independent). Historically, the Falklands were Argentinean for about 20 years (and were under official protection by the British for most of that), so I am also unsure why the Argentineans can claim them (except that they are geographically nearest).
Anyway, neither Argentina, nor the UK give a shit about the handful of shepherds who live on the islands, they want the oil that's underneath them and the fishing rights that go with them. Who should they belong to? Just fucking sort it out (and the economic benefits) and stop bothering the rest of the world with your squabbling.
On April 16 2013 07:11 oneofthem wrote: this kind of thing needs a better framework to get solved.
usually the conflict arises due to colonial legacy which results in a proximate territory to a colonial country with residents from the colonizing country living there long term. so in this situation the colony residents have their personal right to live on the land in conflict with some grand historical unfairness felt by the nationalistic colonial country nearby over claim to the resources found on the piece of island/territory.
without a way of recognizing both of these interests and arguments, a conflict will proceed with each side only advancing their own argument with no middle ground. the result is that the probability of armed conflict and tension rise, while the space for constructive and cooperative agreement get closed.
britain can administer the islands and grant argentina some stake in the resource of the island.
Britain and Argentina actually did agree to a method to share resources of the islands in 1995, and Argentina withdrew in 2007. There really isn't that much need for a framework because there aren't really that many previously-uninhabited islands with a colonial history that are closeish but not in the recognized EEZ of the nearest country. I'm not sure if there are really any other islands anywhere with a remotely comparable situation to that in the Falklands.
Gibraltar, Ceuta, Melilla, Turkish Cyprus, Taiwan. Each unique, but comparable (and yes, I know Ceuta and Melilla aren't islands).
Anyway, neither Argentina, nor the UK give a shit about the handful of shepherds who live on the islands, they want the oil that's underneath them and the fishing rights that go with them. Who should they belong to? Just fucking sort it out (and the economic benefits) and stop bothering the rest of the world with your squabbling.
Clearly the UK only wants the oil, when we went to war for them before anyone even knew there was any oil.
On April 14 2013 01:51 Rassy wrote: Well at least spain and france, who where both superpowers in thoose days must have agreed on spain getting the islands from france? then the only ones to object as superpower are the english (who where at war with spain and/or france all the time) for me the vote of spain and france together would weigh more then the vote of the english (even though i love england way more then i love france or spain)
By your logic:
Spain got them from France - they're Spanish England got them from Spain - they're English.
Think things through please.
Well there are 2 things There is the reasonable argument (wich for me is proximity and for others is letting the citizens decide) and there is the technical argument wich goes back to the law. The technical argument would give the right to the islands to argentinia based on what i know now (wich isnt that much i have to admit), and for me the reasonable argument also would give them to argentinia though i have small doubts there i have to admit.
@ below: ok i see what you mean now and you do have a point. We should then look whos claim on the islands was more reasonable at that time, the english one or spanish one. Based on what i know now it would be the spanish one, because there where no brits on the island at that time and the spanish actually held control, and also because a majority of the superpowers of that time agreed with it. The spanish and portugal had control of pretty much all of south america at that time i think and i have never heard of an english colony there, so i am inclined to believe that spains claim on the islands is the more reasonable.
Although Britain first landed on, named, mapped and colonised the islands? The Spanish claim was made after the British were already established there, the Spanish 'conquered' the islands by destroying the English settlement.
At any rate, this has nothing to do with Spain. Spain respects Gibraltar's right to self determination. Argentina made their own separate attempts to claim the islands, none of which were legal or successful.
Errr, Gibraltar is still a sticking point in British-Spanish relations. I don't know where you get your info. It is officially listed as a territorial dispute in the UN. That the Spanish and British get along in most other ways in the context of the EU, NATO, etc. doesn't mean Gibraltar has been forgotten about: they still claim it's theirs.
Also, the British didn't colonize the islands first. That was the French, and they sold their "colony" to the Spaniards, who made it part of the Buenos Aires colony (which later became Argentina), so in that sense, Argentina was there first. Anyway, "who was there first" or "who named it" is a terrible way to divvy up the world's conflicted territories: in that case you really should give Gibraltar to either Tunesia (Phoenicians were probably the first people there) or Saudi Arabia (the Moors named it Gibraltar) :p
Anyway, neither Argentina, nor the UK give a shit about the handful of shepherds who live on the islands, they want the oil that's underneath them and the fishing rights that go with them. Who should they belong to? Just fucking sort it out (and the economic benefits) and stop bothering the rest of the world with your squabbling.
Clearly the UK only wants the oil, when we went to war for them before anyone even knew there was any oil.
Zzzzz, the war was 95% politics. The UK went to war, because the Iron Lady needed to win an election. Just as Argentina went to war because the Junta needed to show off their military might abroad as a distraction from internal politics.
Anyway, neither Argentina, nor the UK give a shit about the handful of shepherds who live on the islands, they want the oil that's underneath them and the fishing rights that go with them. Who should they belong to? Just fucking sort it out (and the economic benefits) and stop bothering the rest of the world with your squabbling.
Clearly the UK only wants the oil, when we went to war for them before anyone even knew there was any oil.
Zzzzz, the war was 95% politics. The UK went to war, because the Iron Lady needed to win an election. Just as Argentina went to war because the Junta needed to show off their military might abroad as a distraction from internal politics.
Britain went to war because she was attacked. Many of the members of Baroness Thatcher's government argued against fighting back because it just wasn't possible for the Royal Navy to take them back. Patriotism, not the need to win an election, is the reason Thatcher decided to go to war. There was zero chance that she was not going to go to war, election or not.
On April 16 2013 07:11 oneofthem wrote: this kind of thing needs a better framework to get solved.
usually the conflict arises due to colonial legacy which results in a proximate territory to a colonial country with residents from the colonizing country living there long term. so in this situation the colony residents have their personal right to live on the land in conflict with some grand historical unfairness felt by the nationalistic colonial country nearby over claim to the resources found on the piece of island/territory.
without a way of recognizing both of these interests and arguments, a conflict will proceed with each side only advancing their own argument with no middle ground. the result is that the probability of armed conflict and tension rise, while the space for constructive and cooperative agreement get closed.
britain can administer the islands and grant argentina some stake in the resource of the island.
Britain and Argentina actually did agree to a method to share resources of the islands in 1995, and Argentina withdrew in 2007. There really isn't that much need for a framework because there aren't really that many previously-uninhabited islands with a colonial history that are closeish but not in the recognized EEZ of the nearest country. I'm not sure if there are really any other islands anywhere with a remotely comparable situation to that in the Falklands.
Gibraltar, Ceuta, Melilla, Turkish Cyprus, Taiwan. Each unique, but comparable (and yes, I know Ceuta and Melilla aren't islands).
None of those were terra nullius during for the entire historical era, though. Gibraltar is the youngest occupied island at a bit short of a millennium, but even that is literally visible from two countries, so it's a much more obvious territory dispute. Only Cyprus among those has any distance from the closest country.
Honestly, I think the closest comparison would be if Morocco claimed the Canary Islands, only even then it's a distant comparison because the Canaries actually are close to Morocco, and they have natives.
the established EEZ concept is only established because there's an agreement about it. If a country rejects it and instead argue on colonial etc grounds that a piece of land is theirs, then that's still a conflict in the same vein. china's claim on those islands for instance
On April 16 2013 08:56 oneofthem wrote: the established EEZ concept is only established because there's an agreement about it. If a country rejects it and instead argue on colonial etc grounds that a piece of land is theirs, then that's still a conflict in the same vein. china's claim on those islands for instance
China pretty much argues that Pluto is part of its nautical territory so it's not the best example for meaningful non-hyperbolic claims though. The point is that while the Falklands are closer to Argentina than anywhere else, they're not really "close" in an absolute sense; at least, not close enough for anyone from Argentina to have found them first.
On April 14 2013 14:51 Orek wrote: lol this thread came back while I was away from internet for a few days. I don't think I have much to add at this point. I have already made my point that "self-determination" can be a dangerous argument. UK's claim sounds more solid, but self-determination is/should not be the ultimate decider as I have explained from 2nd page on. I wouldn't go as far to say refereundum is irrelevant, but it doesn't have much to with this territorial dispute. UK's claim still stands EVEN IF the referendum were in favor for Argentina or vice versa.
No.
Our claim is "the people want to stay with us".
Self determination is the only, and thus the ultimate, decider.
Yet it is not considered such an ultimate decider in the case of regions wanting to break free. While it might not be the most clearcut case, just to stay on UK issues, what about Scottish self-determination? Would you support Scottish independence? Because the main British political parties sure wouldn't.
but they are having a vote on it? if they want to leave they are welcome to it. it would be a foolish thing for scotland, but they are free to vote on it if they wish.
Anyway, neither Argentina, nor the UK give a shit about the handful of shepherds who live on the islands, they want the oil that's underneath them and the fishing rights that go with them. Who should they belong to? Just fucking sort it out (and the economic benefits) and stop bothering the rest of the world with your squabbling.
Clearly the UK only wants the oil, when we went to war for them before anyone even knew there was any oil.
Zzzzz, the war was 95% politics. The UK went to war, because the Iron Lady needed to win an election. Just as Argentina went to war because the Junta needed to show off their military might abroad as a distraction from internal politics.
and the soldiers who did the actual fighting, they only showed up to help thatcher win an election?
On April 14 2013 14:51 Orek wrote: lol this thread came back while I was away from internet for a few days. I don't think I have much to add at this point. I have already made my point that "self-determination" can be a dangerous argument. UK's claim sounds more solid, but self-determination is/should not be the ultimate decider as I have explained from 2nd page on. I wouldn't go as far to say refereundum is irrelevant, but it doesn't have much to with this territorial dispute. UK's claim still stands EVEN IF the referendum were in favor for Argentina or vice versa.
No.
Our claim is "the people want to stay with us".
Self determination is the only, and thus the ultimate, decider.
Yet it is not considered such an ultimate decider in the case of regions wanting to break free. While it might not be the most clearcut case, just to stay on UK issues, what about Scottish self-determination? Would you support Scottish independence? Because the main British political parties sure wouldn't.
but they are having a vote on it? if they want to leave they are welcome to it. it would be a foolish thing for scotland, but they are free to vote on it if they wish.
Anyway, neither Argentina, nor the UK give a shit about the handful of shepherds who live on the islands, they want the oil that's underneath them and the fishing rights that go with them. Who should they belong to? Just fucking sort it out (and the economic benefits) and stop bothering the rest of the world with your squabbling.
Clearly the UK only wants the oil, when we went to war for them before anyone even knew there was any oil.
Zzzzz, the war was 95% politics. The UK went to war, because the Iron Lady needed to win an election. Just as Argentina went to war because the Junta needed to show off their military might abroad as a distraction from internal politics.
and the soldiers who did the actual fighting, they only showed up to help thatcher win an election?
No, of course not. But since when do soldiers at the time know the real motives behind a war? Obviously Thatcher, at the time, didn't say "hey guys, I need to shift the focus away from the terrible unemployment from all the closing coal mines, luckily Argentina just invaded these useless rocks 20,000 miles away. Lets use that, why don't you go and give your lives for me, so I can win an election?"
Just as the Argentinean junta didn't sell it as "dudes, we completely fucked up and are in the middle of an economic crisis, because we lined our pockets with all the money we could rob from the country. We know that we can't keep tossing all dissenters off planes above the Atlantic, because there are just more and more of them, so you know what, we will send a load of soldiers to die over a load of useless rocks in a show of patriotism, just so nobody focuses on that!"
EDIT: and of course I think that there are Argentineans (even junta leaders at the time) who truly believe the Malvinas are Argentinean territory and worth fighting for, just as Maggie Thatcher was a nationalist who strongly believed in fighting for the Falklands as a part of Britain. But the reason the war actually HAPPENED, was because it was politically opportune.
I highly doubt there would be another conflict and even if the 1% chance scenario actually happened, Argentina and the UK are very different countries now especially in economic terms heck South American as well in terms of geopolitics.
EDIT: and of course I think that there are Argentineans (even junta leaders at the time) who truly believe the Malvinas are Argentinean territory and worth fighting for, just as Maggie Thatcher was a nationalist who strongly believed in fighting for the Falklands as a part of Britain. But the reason the war actually HAPPENED, was because it was politically opportune.
She wasn't a nationalist, she was a patriot.
And can you back what you're saying up? I honestly don't think political concerns were any kind of priority in her mind at the moment. She would calculate the politics, but the largest part of that calculation were her unfortunately outdated ideas about the honor and sanctity of British soil and citizens.
On April 14 2013 01:42 Rassy wrote: How is argentinia wrong? This is not about argentinia beeing a terrible country btw, that should be completely irrelevant and this is also not about wanting to support the underdog.
If spain gave them the islands when they became independant, then it are their islands? Spain was a super power in thoose days and european countrys shuffled around colonys now and then. If spain got the islands from france (all following the laws of that time and with the majority of superpowers of thoose days agreeing with it (spain and france definatly must have agreed)) then it are spains islands and if spain then decides to give them to argentina as part of their independance it are argentinias islands. Its just because this all happend hunderds of years ago and it now is more or less a status quo, that the british think they can pull this off. If denmark would give greenland full independance, and the next day the brits invade it and start making settlements there and chasing away the current population and then hold a referendum noone would accept it. I dont want to see the islands become argentinian at all btw but this is more about who is fundamentally right or wrong.
When we allow citizens to decide upon wich state they should belong manny countrys will fall apart. Even the usa will fall apart eventually in that case. Rich areas of countrys will want to become independant from the poor areas of the country. Alaska could become a state itself with middle east like wealth for all its citizens, leaving the south of america to take care of itself.
Spain wasn't a super power in those days, it was in decline and that's why it didn't own the islands at the time it supposedly "gave" them to Argentina, Britain never relinquished its original claim on the islands so they weren't France or Spain's to give away.
The Falkland Islands were first discovered by an Englishman in 1690, some of the first settlers there were British, the UK has had by far the longest presence on the islands of any country and has owned them since 1833 after the first illegal Argentine settlement was destroyed by the US Navy for piracy, you can't just ask people who have lived somewhere for generations to leave because some other people lived there for a very short period of time nearly two hundred years ago.
Also the proximity argument makes no sense either, should New Caledonia belong to Australia? Bermuda to the US? Channel Islands to France? Saint Pierre and Miquelon to Canada?
On April 14 2013 14:51 Orek wrote: lol this thread came back while I was away from internet for a few days. I don't think I have much to add at this point. I have already made my point that "self-determination" can be a dangerous argument. UK's claim sounds more solid, but self-determination is/should not be the ultimate decider as I have explained from 2nd page on. I wouldn't go as far to say refereundum is irrelevant, but it doesn't have much to with this territorial dispute. UK's claim still stands EVEN IF the referendum were in favor for Argentina or vice versa.
No.
Our claim is "the people want to stay with us".
Self determination is the only, and thus the ultimate, decider.
Yet it is not considered such an ultimate decider in the case of regions wanting to break free. While it might not be the most clearcut case, just to stay on UK issues, what about Scottish self-determination? Would you support Scottish independence? Because the main British political parties sure wouldn't.
I do not support Scottish independence and will be voting No in September 2014. And of course the British political parties wouldn't support the break up of Britain.
Anyway, neither Argentina, nor the UK give a shit about the handful of shepherds who live on the islands, they want the oil that's underneath them and the fishing rights that go with them. Who should they belong to? Just fucking sort it out (and the economic benefits) and stop bothering the rest of the world with your squabbling.
Clearly the UK only wants the oil, when we went to war for them before anyone even knew there was any oil.
Zzzzz, the war was 95% politics. The UK went to war, because the Iron Lady needed to win an election. Just as Argentina went to war because the Junta needed to show off their military might abroad as a distraction from internal politics.
The main difference being that the war was STARTED by Argentina, the British government certainly didn't see it coming and a lot of ministers resigned in shame when it happened.
"Also, the British didn't colonize the islands first. That was the French, and they sold their "colony" to the Spaniards, who made it part of the Buenos Aires colony (which later became Argentina), so in that sense, Argentina was there first. Anyway, "who was there first" or "who named it" is a terrible way to divvy up the world's conflicted territories: in that case you really should give Gibraltar to either Tunesia (Phoenicians were probably the first people there) or Saudi Arabia (the Moors named it Gibraltar)"
Here, i am not the only one who says it. It seems that the french had the colony first and sold it to spain, who gave argentinia and the islands its indepandance. To put it in a bit populistic way: as soon as spain gave the colony its independance the brits saw their change and grabbed control. Gibraltar is a terrible example btw to support englands case,its sticking out there on the shore of spain and it makes absolutely no sense for it to be british but o well.
Maybe a shared control is the best what argentinian can hope for, split the islands and more importantly the offshore oil reserves. Arent there more then 1 island annyway? the argentinians could get one of the uninhabited islands to put on some lighthouse or whatever and they could devide the offshore grounds. Annyway:the brits wont go and neither would i if i where british lol. 200b is alot of oil though we should not overestimate it. in the large sceme of things 200b isnt that much annymore. With an argentinian lady soon to become queen of the netherlands i feel the need to keep supporting argentinia in this case
About the scottisch referendum. Thats a fake as well lol, the brits only agreed to the referendum because they have the confidence that the outcome will be "NO" If the outcome was expected to be "YES" then the brits would not agree with the referendum. Why is there no referendum about flaanders becoming independant? i guess because that referendum would actually pass. Same for northern ireland (wich is basicly a part of ireland no?)
On April 19 2013 02:04 Rassy wrote: "Also, the British didn't colonize the islands first. That was the French, and they sold their "colony" to the Spaniards, who made it part of the Buenos Aires colony (which later became Argentina), so in that sense, Argentina was there first. Anyway, "who was there first" or "who named it" is a terrible way to divvy up the world's conflicted territories: in that case you really should give Gibraltar to either Tunesia (Phoenicians were probably the first people there) or Saudi Arabia (the Moors named it Gibraltar)"
Here, i am not the only one who says it. It seems that the french had the colony first and sold it to spain, who gave argentinia and the islands its indepandance. To put it in a bit populistic way: as soon as spain gave the colony its independance the brits saw their change and grabbed control. Gibraltar is a terrible example btw to support englands case,its sticking out there on the shore of spain and it makes absolutely no sense for it to be british but o well.
Maybe a shared control is the best what argentinian can hope for, split the islands and more importantly the offshore oil reserves. Arent there more then 1 island annyway? the argentinians could get one of the uninhabited islands to put on some lighthouse or whatever and they could devide the offshore grounds. Annyway:the brits wont go and neither would i if i where british lol. 200b is alot of oil though we should not overestimate it. in the large sceme of things 200b isnt that much annymore. With an argentinian lady soon to become queen of the netherlands i feel the need to keep supporting argentinia in this case
About the scottisch referendum. Thats a fake as well lol, the brits only agreed to the referendum because they have the confidence that the outcome will be "NO" If the outcome was expected to be "YES" then the brits would not agree with the referendum. Why is there no referendum about flaanders becoming independant? i guess because that referendum would actually pass. Same for northern ireland (wich is basicly a part of ireland no?)
"The brits"
You do realize the Scottish are British?
And Northern Ireland has like 98% support for staying in the UK, that's why there's no referendum there, no one wants it.
Posting again because everyone seemed to ignore it.
On March 12 2013 13:29 docvoc wrote: Most of the debate boils down to Argentinians saying that the Islands are theirs, and neglecting all surveys that say that the islanders want to remain British. The British side is more like, we <3 your reserves, lets let the islanders speak for themselves because we know they would rather be backed by our government than Argentina's. The people have spoken, we are passed the point of "neo-colonialism" in the Falklands, at least in my opinion.
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.
Well this explains why USSR had one of the vetoes from the getgo, granting them equal power to USA.
Anyway. I don't see why Argentina would be entitled to the islands. It had been colonized by the british even before Argentina existed. The Falklanders have their right to be independent, and as independents, they have a right to pick a country to be afilliated with. They clearly wants to be considered british, so good for them. Time to move on.
On March 12 2013 13:29 docvoc wrote: Most of the debate boils down to Argentinians saying that the Islands are theirs, and neglecting all surveys that say that the islanders want to remain British. The British side is more like, we <3 your reserves, lets let the islanders speak for themselves because we know they would rather be backed by our government than Argentina's. The people have spoken, we are passed the point of "neo-colonialism" in the Falklands, at least in my opinion.
EDIT:
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.
Well this explains why USSR had one of the vetoes from the getgo, granting them equal power to USA.
Anyway. I don't see why Argentina would be entitled to the islands. It had been colonized by the british even before Argentina existed. The Falklanders have their right to be independent, and as independents, they have a right to pick a country to be afilliated with. They clearly wants to be considered british, so good for them. Time to move on.
Ahh, but who are the 5 permanent members of the Security Council?
On March 12 2013 14:28 KwarK wrote: Basically no Argentinians have ever lived on the island. They have literally no claim beyond "Spain used to claim them and we're kinda like Spain, do you guys even speak Spanish?" and "look at a map, we're kinda close".
This is probably the best quote on this whole situation I think I've ever seen, in my entire life!
On March 12 2013 13:29 docvoc wrote: Most of the debate boils down to Argentinians saying that the Islands are theirs, and neglecting all surveys that say that the islanders want to remain British. The British side is more like, we <3 your reserves, lets let the islanders speak for themselves because we know they would rather be backed by our government than Argentina's. The people have spoken, we are passed the point of "neo-colonialism" in the Falklands, at least in my opinion.
EDIT:
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.
Well this explains why USSR had one of the vetoes from the getgo, granting them equal power to USA.
Anyway. I don't see why Argentina would be entitled to the islands. It had been colonized by the british even before Argentina existed. The Falklanders have their right to be independent, and as independents, they have a right to pick a country to be afilliated with. They clearly wants to be considered british, so good for them. Time to move on.
Ahh, but who are the 5 permanent members of the Security Council?
On April 16 2013 08:56 oneofthem wrote: the established EEZ concept is only established because there's an agreement about it. If a country rejects it and instead argue on colonial etc grounds that a piece of land is theirs, then that's still a conflict in the same vein. china's claim on those islands for instance
China pretty much argues that Pluto is part of its nautical territory so it's not the best example for meaningful non-hyperbolic claims though. The point is that while the Falklands are closer to Argentina than anywhere else, they're not really "close" in an absolute sense; at least, not close enough for anyone from Argentina to have found them first.
that their claim is aggressive is kind of part of the point. with nationalistic claims that may not arise from any genuine grievances, what's on the other side to oppose those silly but strongly made claims? a piece of colonial contract.
imagine if you had more of a framework in place instead of this piece of colonial paper, it'll go further in limiting senseless nationalistic claims by undercutting their narrative of restoring justice to imperialism. makes for more sensible discussion than a scream match, which is what's going on now.
On April 16 2013 08:56 oneofthem wrote: the established EEZ concept is only established because there's an agreement about it. If a country rejects it and instead argue on colonial etc grounds that a piece of land is theirs, then that's still a conflict in the same vein. china's claim on those islands for instance
China pretty much argues that Pluto is part of its nautical territory so it's not the best example for meaningful non-hyperbolic claims though. The point is that while the Falklands are closer to Argentina than anywhere else, they're not really "close" in an absolute sense; at least, not close enough for anyone from Argentina to have found them first.
that their claim is aggressive is kind of part of the point. with nationalistic claims that may not arise from any genuine grievances, what's on the other side to oppose those silly but strongly made claims? a piece of colonial contract.
imagine if you had more of a framework in place instead of this piece of colonial paper, it'll go further in limiting senseless nationalistic claims by undercutting their narrative of restoring justice to imperialism. makes for more sensible discussion than a scream match, which is what's going on now.
The situation with China is the opposite though. Despite its might, China really doesn't own all the waters in Southeast Asia, but it is concerning that they make such bold claims, since eventually they really make try to make good on them. The Falklands already had a hot war, and Argentina lost, and it's inconceivable they would start another war. The official UK stance is that there's no dispute at all and nothing to talk about. Though the UK occasionally pulls stunts like the referendum, there's not really a "screaming match" at all: it's more like the UK is a big brother and Argentina is the little sister flailing its arms screaming "I'm gonna get you" but the UK is just holding her back by her forehead and there's nothing she can do;.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.oocities.org/guiltypalestinianteachersparents/palestinianchildabuse071119.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/Falklands.permanence.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/qmtFThi.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/mL7lVFX.jpg)
