On April 10 2013 06:17 oneofthem wrote: nunez's approach is interesting to entertain as an idealization. let's all sit down at the table and divide out fair share according to who's closer and who 'needs' it more.
but if we are to go that far, might as well get rid of borders altogether.
yes, i realize it is not an effective solution to settle disputes. and it's not an approach i would generally follow. in this scenario i thought it wouldn't be oversimplifying too much.
now, looking back, covered in bile, i guess i was mistaken.
edit: my initial post was a reaction to calling the war justified. i'm not sure it was, my knee jerk reaction is to think that it was not justified, but unfortunate. a lot of people seem to think this opinion is garbage, or i am failing to communicate. both equally probable.
Bear in mind that Argentina was the aggressor. They might of thought that the islands should belong to them but they knew full well that they were invading foreign territory.
yes, i am aware of this. they considered, and rightfully so, i initially thought, that territory to be theirs. not that it alone would justify an invasion. probably a terrible decision on their part.
but i am not sure it had to come to that, in which case the conflict would not be in my eyes justified, but unfortunate. not something you parade about like an achievement or good policy, but rather something that had to be done because of your shortcomings as a leader.
maybe it did, and i'm plain wrong.
The falklands people speak English, have English citizenship, are of English descent and wish to be part of England. That is the end of it. Argentina has absolutely zero claim to the islands.
the majority of the thousands of people living on this island at the time considered themselves british, i understand this. britain has a legitimate stake in that territory. it is at least the british living there, maybe even their possessions. but i don't think that is necessarily sufficient to establish that argentinia has zero claim to the territory in this scenario. nor do i think taking such a stance would necessarily help in finding the optimal way of solving a dispute.
and at the very least i think it's detrimental to limit yourself to that approach when you are trying to understand such an incident that happened in the past.
we don't think that claim to some territory at any given period in time with arbitrary length is only based on who lives the closest to the territory in that period. it can be a useful abstraction in a lot of less dynamic cases, but probably not so much in cases similar to this one.
a nations claim to land is based purely on the population who lives there. this is the idea that underpins the end of empires. no matter your military or economic might (regional or global) it is the people, and their right to self determination that decides the borders of countries.
this is why mexico doesnt have a claim on texas, the uk doesnt have a claim on the united states and argentina doesnt have a claim on the falklands. with the idea of nationalism and nation states developed from the beginning of the 20th century the slate of history was wiped clean. the people decided who was to govern them, and the people of the falklands chose the british government.
On April 10 2013 06:17 oneofthem wrote: nunez's approach is interesting to entertain as an idealization. let's all sit down at the table and divide out fair share according to who's closer and who 'needs' it more.
but if we are to go that far, might as well get rid of borders altogether.
yes, i realize it is not an effective solution to settle disputes. and it's not an approach i would generally follow. in this scenario i thought it wouldn't be oversimplifying too much.
now, looking back, covered in bile, i guess i was mistaken.
edit: my initial post was a reaction to calling the war justified. i'm not sure it was, my knee jerk reaction is to think that it was not justified, but unfortunate. a lot of people seem to think this opinion is garbage, or i am failing to communicate. both equally probable.
Bear in mind that Argentina was the aggressor. They might of thought that the islands should belong to them but they knew full well that they were invading foreign territory.
yes, i am aware of this. they considered, and rightfully so, i initially thought, that territory to be theirs. not that it alone would justify an invasion. probably a terrible decision on their part.
but i am not sure it had to come to that, in which case the conflict would not be in my eyes justified, but unfortunate. not something you parade about like an achievement or good policy, but rather something that had to be done because of your shortcomings as a leader.
maybe it did, and i'm plain wrong.
The falklands people speak English, have English citizenship, are of English descent and wish to be part of England. That is the end of it. Argentina has absolutely zero claim to the islands.
the majority of the thousands of people living on this island at the time considered themselves british, i understand this. britain has a legitimate stake in that territory. it is at least the british living there, maybe even their possessions. but i don't think that is necessarily sufficient to establish that argentinia has zero claim to the territory in this scenario. nor do i think taking such a stance would necessarily help in finding the optimal way of solving a dispute.
and at the very least i think it's detrimental to limit yourself to that approach when you are trying to understand such an incident that happened in the past.
we don't think that claim to some territory at any given period in time with arbitrary length is only based on who lives the closest to the territory in that period. it can be a useful abstraction in a lot of less dynamic cases, but probably not so much in cases similar to this one.
a nations claim to land is based purely on the population who lives there. this is the idea that underpins the end of empires. no matter your military or economic might (regional or global) it is the people, and their right to self determination that decides the borders of countries.
this is why mexico doesnt have a claim on texas, the uk doesnt have a claim on the united states and argentina doesnt have a claim on the falklands. with the idea of nationalism and nation states developed from the beginning of the 20th century the slate of history was wiped clean. the people decided who was to govern them, and the people of the falklands chose the british government.
good post, but i would like to put some numbers on your examples to make it clear how one is so not like the other that i think you should pick it up with special gloves, and use special glasses when you examine it.
mexico to texas, zilch km, population ratio ~ 6:1. no distance, comparable population size. uk to the united states, ~ 5900 km, population ratio ~ 1:5. very long distance, comparable population size. argentinia to the falklands, ~ 800 km, ~ 15 000 : 1, relatively short distance, uncomparable population size. lets consider time as well for this last one, four - five generations to hundreds.
norway is over double the length of argentinia to the falklands, with a population ratio of ~ 10:1. i can see why the argentinian people would think they have a legitimate claim to the territory using the same logic you use. they have been living there. there is not a point, it is a region.
regardless of claim bringing those two thousand brits to britain compared to casualties and money spent on the war (~3 bn pounds) does not seem like it was just complete and utter garbage. it was also a topic of discussion leading up to the war, as shown in the previous article.
my approach is probably not, as remarked on before by another island, a sensible approach in general. in this scenario it is rational when determining whether or not the war was justified and/or avoidable.
On April 10 2013 11:35 nunez wrote: hah. stupid... i'm just getting started.
challenge your stance, entertain some nuance, a man might be a brit, but sheep don't give a shit.
you want to sit on it now to prove some point, good for you, i can't blame you for that. but it probably means that we are not seeing eye to eye on what is being discussed.
Because you're not discussing anything. You're posting in horrendous broken English and making absolutely zero points, you're not even make any bad points, never mind good ones. You have no case at all because there is no case.
On April 10 2013 06:17 oneofthem wrote: nunez's approach is interesting to entertain as an idealization. let's all sit down at the table and divide out fair share according to who's closer and who 'needs' it more.
but if we are to go that far, might as well get rid of borders altogether.
yes, i realize it is not an effective solution to settle disputes. and it's not an approach i would generally follow. in this scenario i thought it wouldn't be oversimplifying too much.
now, looking back, covered in bile, i guess i was mistaken.
edit: my initial post was a reaction to calling the war justified. i'm not sure it was, my knee jerk reaction is to think that it was not justified, but unfortunate. a lot of people seem to think this opinion is garbage, or i am failing to communicate. both equally probable.
Bear in mind that Argentina was the aggressor. They might of thought that the islands should belong to them but they knew full well that they were invading foreign territory.
yes, i am aware of this. they considered, and rightfully so, i initially thought, that territory to be theirs. not that it alone would justify an invasion. probably a terrible decision on their part.
but i am not sure it had to come to that, in which case the conflict would not be in my eyes justified, but unfortunate. not something you parade about like an achievement or good policy, but rather something that had to be done because of your shortcomings as a leader.
maybe it did, and i'm plain wrong.
The falklands people speak English, have English citizenship, are of English descent and wish to be part of England. That is the end of it. Argentina has absolutely zero claim to the islands.
the majority of the thousands of people living on this island at the time considered themselves british, i understand this. britain has a legitimate stake in that territory. it is at least the british living there, maybe even their possessions. but i don't think that is necessarily sufficient to establish that argentinia has zero claim to the territory in this scenario. nor do i think taking such a stance would necessarily help in finding the optimal way of solving a dispute.
and at the very least i think it's detrimental to limit yourself to that approach when you are trying to understand such an incident that happened in the past.
we don't think that claim to some territory at any given period in time with arbitrary length is only based on who lives the closest to the territory in that period. it can be a useful abstraction in a lot of less dynamic cases, but probably not so much in cases similar to this one.
a nations claim to land is based purely on the population who lives there. this is the idea that underpins the end of empires. no matter your military or economic might (regional or global) it is the people, and their right to self determination that decides the borders of countries.
this is why mexico doesnt have a claim on texas, the uk doesnt have a claim on the united states and argentina doesnt have a claim on the falklands. with the idea of nationalism and nation states developed from the beginning of the 20th century the slate of history was wiped clean. the people decided who was to govern them, and the people of the falklands chose the british government.
good post, but i would like to put some numbers on your examples to make it clear how one is so not like the other that i think you should pick it up with special gloves, and use special glasses when you examine it.
mexico to texas, zilch km, population ratio ~ 6:1. no distance, comparable population size. uk to the united states, ~ 5900 km, population ratio ~ 1:5. very long distance, comparable population size. argentinia to the falklands, ~ 800 km, ~ 15 000 : 1, relatively short distance, uncomparable population size. lets consider time as well for this last one, four - five generations to hundreds.
norway is over double the length of argentinia to the falklands, with a population ratio of ~ 10:1. i can see why the argentinian people would think they have a legitimate claim to the territory using the same logic you use. they have been living there. there is not a point, it is a region.
regardless of claim bringing those two thousand brits to britain compared to casualties and money spent on the war (~3 bn pounds) does not seem like it was just complete and utter garbage. it was also a topic of discussion leading up to the war, as shown in the previous article.
my approach is probably not, as remarked on before by another island, a sensible approach in general. in this scenario it is rational when determining whether or not the war was justified and/or avoidable.
Why is this hard for you to understand?
You do not have a claim to land based on it's proximity to your own or the even more stupid reason that you have more people or money than them. That is the justification used by every empire, imperialist, tyrant, dictator and conqueror to ever walk the earth.
The self determination of the people is all that matters.
Perhaps if you could actually speak English we could discuss this better.
implicit in this land claim discussion is the fact that the UK is more advanced and developed earlier than argentina. just to tease out the logic, imagine if we earthlings have galactic neighbors who are much more advanced, and they lay claim to our moon's resources because some of their settlers were on it before USA put a flag on the moon.
or in starcraft terms, if somebody claimed your nat expansion because you had a delayed start.
but in this particular instance argentina's invasion was very bad, and their nationalistic attitude about it partially made a better solution impossible.
On April 10 2013 06:17 oneofthem wrote: nunez's approach is interesting to entertain as an idealization. let's all sit down at the table and divide out fair share according to who's closer and who 'needs' it more.
but if we are to go that far, might as well get rid of borders altogether.
yes, i realize it is not an effective solution to settle disputes. and it's not an approach i would generally follow. in this scenario i thought it wouldn't be oversimplifying too much.
now, looking back, covered in bile, i guess i was mistaken.
edit: my initial post was a reaction to calling the war justified. i'm not sure it was, my knee jerk reaction is to think that it was not justified, but unfortunate. a lot of people seem to think this opinion is garbage, or i am failing to communicate. both equally probable.
Bear in mind that Argentina was the aggressor. They might of thought that the islands should belong to them but they knew full well that they were invading foreign territory.
yes, i am aware of this. they considered, and rightfully so, i initially thought, that territory to be theirs. not that it alone would justify an invasion. probably a terrible decision on their part.
but i am not sure it had to come to that, in which case the conflict would not be in my eyes justified, but unfortunate. not something you parade about like an achievement or good policy, but rather something that had to be done because of your shortcomings as a leader.
maybe it did, and i'm plain wrong.
The falklands people speak English, have English citizenship, are of English descent and wish to be part of England. That is the end of it. Argentina has absolutely zero claim to the islands.
the majority of the thousands of people living on this island at the time considered themselves british, i understand this. britain has a legitimate stake in that territory. it is at least the british living there, maybe even their possessions. but i don't think that is necessarily sufficient to establish that argentinia has zero claim to the territory in this scenario. nor do i think taking such a stance would necessarily help in finding the optimal way of solving a dispute.
and at the very least i think it's detrimental to limit yourself to that approach when you are trying to understand such an incident that happened in the past.
we don't think that claim to some territory at any given period in time with arbitrary length is only based on who lives the closest to the territory in that period. it can be a useful abstraction in a lot of less dynamic cases, but probably not so much in cases similar to this one.
a nations claim to land is based purely on the population who lives there. this is the idea that underpins the end of empires. no matter your military or economic might (regional or global) it is the people, and their right to self determination that decides the borders of countries.
this is why mexico doesnt have a claim on texas, the uk doesnt have a claim on the united states and argentina doesnt have a claim on the falklands. with the idea of nationalism and nation states developed from the beginning of the 20th century the slate of history was wiped clean. the people decided who was to govern them, and the people of the falklands chose the british government.
good post, but i would like to put some numbers on your examples to make it clear how one is so not like the other that i think you should pick it up with special gloves, and use special glasses when you examine it.
mexico to texas, zilch km, population ratio ~ 6:1. no distance, comparable population size. uk to the united states, ~ 5900 km, population ratio ~ 1:5. very long distance, comparable population size. argentinia to the falklands, ~ 800 km, ~ 15 000 : 1, relatively short distance, uncomparable population size. lets consider time as well for this last one, four - five generations to hundreds.
norway is over double the length of argentinia to the falklands, with a population ratio of ~ 10:1. i can see why the argentinian people would think they have a legitimate claim to the territory using the same logic you use. they have been living there. there is not a point, it is a region.
regardless of claim bringing those two thousand brits to britain compared to casualties and money spent on the war (~3 bn pounds) does not seem like it was just complete and utter garbage. it was also a topic of discussion leading up to the war, as shown in the previous article.
my approach is probably not, as remarked on before by another island, a sensible approach in general. in this scenario it is rational when determining whether or not the war was justified and/or avoidable.
Why is this hard for you to understand?
You do not have a claim to land based on it's proximity to your own or the even more stupid reason that you have more people or money than them. That is the justification used by every empire, imperialist, tyrant, dictator and conqueror to ever walk the earth.
The self determination of the people is all that matters.
Perhaps if you could actually speak English we could discuss this better.
There really is such a thing as a claim to land based on proximity; however, Argentina is not even close enough to the Falklands that Las Malvinas could be considered within their Exclusive Economic Zone.
On April 11 2013 04:36 Klive5ive wrote: Well done Ed Miliband, I'm not usually a fan but this was brilliant. He's the Leader of the opposition (the party opposing Thatcher's conservatives). -snip- If only the rest of England had as much decency.
Ed's speach was nothing short of a show of moderatism, and they're not the party opposing Thatcher's conservatives but rather they're opposing Cameron's. In fact, finding any leading member of the labour party who wouldn't suck up to Thatcher would be quite impressive. Kinnock, Blair, Brown. Peter Mandelson summed up new Labour with the quote "we are all Thatcherites now". -source
On April 10 2013 06:17 oneofthem wrote: nunez's approach is interesting to entertain as an idealization. let's all sit down at the table and divide out fair share according to who's closer and who 'needs' it more.
but if we are to go that far, might as well get rid of borders altogether.
yes, i realize it is not an effective solution to settle disputes. and it's not an approach i would generally follow. in this scenario i thought it wouldn't be oversimplifying too much.
now, looking back, covered in bile, i guess i was mistaken.
edit: my initial post was a reaction to calling the war justified. i'm not sure it was, my knee jerk reaction is to think that it was not justified, but unfortunate. a lot of people seem to think this opinion is garbage, or i am failing to communicate. both equally probable.
Bear in mind that Argentina was the aggressor. They might of thought that the islands should belong to them but they knew full well that they were invading foreign territory.
yes, i am aware of this. they considered, and rightfully so, i initially thought, that territory to be theirs. not that it alone would justify an invasion. probably a terrible decision on their part.
but i am not sure it had to come to that, in which case the conflict would not be in my eyes justified, but unfortunate. not something you parade about like an achievement or good policy, but rather something that had to be done because of your shortcomings as a leader.
maybe it did, and i'm plain wrong.
The falklands people speak English, have English citizenship, are of English descent and wish to be part of England. That is the end of it. Argentina has absolutely zero claim to the islands.
the majority of the thousands of people living on this island at the time considered themselves british, i understand this. britain has a legitimate stake in that territory. it is at least the british living there, maybe even their possessions. but i don't think that is necessarily sufficient to establish that argentinia has zero claim to the territory in this scenario. nor do i think taking such a stance would necessarily help in finding the optimal way of solving a dispute.
and at the very least i think it's detrimental to limit yourself to that approach when you are trying to understand such an incident that happened in the past.
we don't think that claim to some territory at any given period in time with arbitrary length is only based on who lives the closest to the territory in that period. it can be a useful abstraction in a lot of less dynamic cases, but probably not so much in cases similar to this one.
a nations claim to land is based purely on the population who lives there. this is the idea that underpins the end of empires. no matter your military or economic might (regional or global) it is the people, and their right to self determination that decides the borders of countries.
this is why mexico doesnt have a claim on texas, the uk doesnt have a claim on the united states and argentina doesnt have a claim on the falklands. with the idea of nationalism and nation states developed from the beginning of the 20th century the slate of history was wiped clean. the people decided who was to govern them, and the people of the falklands chose the british government.
good post, but i would like to put some numbers on your examples to make it clear how one is so not like the other that i think you should pick it up with special gloves, and use special glasses when you examine it.
mexico to texas, zilch km, population ratio ~ 6:1. no distance, comparable population size. uk to the united states, ~ 5900 km, population ratio ~ 1:5. very long distance, comparable population size. argentinia to the falklands, ~ 800 km, ~ 15 000 : 1, relatively short distance, uncomparable population size. lets consider time as well for this last one, four - five generations to hundreds.
norway is over double the length of argentinia to the falklands, with a population ratio of ~ 10:1. i can see why the argentinian people would think they have a legitimate claim to the territory using the same logic you use. they have been living there. there is not a point, it is a region.
regardless of claim bringing those two thousand brits to britain compared to casualties and money spent on the war (~3 bn pounds) does not seem like it was just complete and utter garbage. it was also a topic of discussion leading up to the war, as shown in the previous article.
my approach is probably not, as remarked on before by another island, a sensible approach in general. in this scenario it is rational when determining whether or not the war was justified and/or avoidable.
Why is this hard for you to understand?
You do not have a claim to land based on it's proximity to your own or the even more stupid reason that you have more people or money than them. That is the justification used by every empire, imperialist, tyrant, dictator and conqueror to ever walk the earth.
The self determination of the people is all that matters.
Perhaps if you could actually speak English we could discuss this better.
i do understand. however i think your definition of proximity and people are too narrow in this case.
enough with the petulance, it's not nice. or at least make your insults entertaining so it will be worthwhile for me to endure them.
On April 11 2013 03:26 oneofthem wrote: but in this particular instance argentina's invasion was very bad, and their nationalistic attitude about it partially made a better solution impossible.
if the scenario begins with the invasion it would probably very hard, but it could be valuable to look a bit further back than that. there was probably already communication going on between britain and argentinia, a 'glhf' of sorts.
Miliband's a rather decent speaker, and that was quite decent, not antagonistic, but not papering over all the cracks and making her out to be some kind of saint.
On April 11 2013 08:24 Wombat_NI wrote: Miliband's a rather decent speaker, and that was quite decent, not antagonistic, but not papering over all the cracks and making her out to be some kind of saint.
Miliband had great potential as a politician, i could have seen him being one of labour's best leaders for a long time, but then he listened to his party and now spends his time bitching about everything the government does without coming up with any ideas of his own. I hate it when politicians become too inducted into that horrible seedy little world.
I don't know really, I think Milliband, his 'real' views and all that are something the public would be receptive to, but he's far too afraid/advised to avoid mentioning them. People are still raging at the previous Labour government so perhaps that is electorally smart, but simply being a slightly more moderate Conservative party doesn't get my pulse racing at all.
Tbh even disliking Cameron policies i have to say that as a party leader he appears much more experienced (admittedly he is) and generally much more in control than Milliband. Labour in general looks like they've had almost a cult of personality at the upper levels in recent years as compared to Blair and Brown, Miliband seems to lack confidence and even drive and vision, but i think he has the drive and vision but is just to flustered to be able to show it. The result is he ends up looking like a sniveling version of Salmond who tells you about great things for scotland but no details.
The funny thing is if Cameron wasn't a Tory i would definitely vote for him because he actually looks composed, and a "i actually know what i'm doing" which is suprisingly lacking in British politics
On April 11 2013 04:36 Klive5ive wrote: Well done Ed Miliband, I'm not usually a fan but this was brilliant. He's the Leader of the opposition (the party opposing Thatcher's conservatives). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hPEwKwFx8Q If only the rest of England had as much decency.
I'm sure some people will mourne her, sad for them.
on my part, im glad she's gone, she was against progress, against collective rights, against socialism. and to those who think she was feminist, She hated feminism (she did call it "poison").
R.I.P. Chavez (Isn't it ironical? when chavez died some people jumped on the occasion to denigrate his work, the same people now ask for "decency" towards tatcher...)
EPT
