The Falklands - Who should own these godforsaken islands?

To an empty place owned by the UK...Just because a local bully sees a chance at some wealth not his does not make his attempt to get it legal or moral.

 

Which approaches my point...The UK may be simply too weak to hold their territory today as a result of foolish defense decisions over the last 20 years.

 

Independent national sovereign states have the right to self-determination. The Falklands is not a nation state- indeed, the UK passport-holding UK citizen's who reside their, insist they are a part of the BRITISH NATION. The Britain's residing on the Falkland's, therefore, have the right of self-determination IN BRITAIN.

Now, it seems to me thet there are two ways in which we can handle the situation:

1) Financially compensate the Falklander's and re-settle them as millionaires or:
2) Negotiate with Argentina a scheme whereby the people who live there can continue to be British and the territory and its waters become Argentinian. This could be settled within the UN.

 

Nonsense. It's now 2012 not 1982. It's in our medium to long term national interest to negotiate with Argentina.

 

I rarely agree with you Albert but on this you are on the button. I'm a Brit and the problem with many of my fellow countrymen and women is that it's hard for them to shake off their jingoistic and colonialist attitudes.

 

There is no need for Americans to evacuate. The First People of the US are mostly dead. The prior claimants' claims are moot. Americans have become a distinct and separate people.

 

Hmmmm

Jongoistic, colonialist?

What on earth would the average Briton feel 'colonial' or jingoist about these windblown islands so far away?

Cant you see this is simple principle?

As for ratcheting up tension, so what? And if Britons feel increased financial pressure on protecting these islands then so what?

If you really think britons are going to so easily sacrifice these islanders then really you dont know your own countrymen. For example, I know for a fact from my military experience that if Argentina tries anything the military would happily invade the argentinian mainland and cut a swathe through the greasy bastards. Me too.

 

I agree with that.

 

Foolish defence position?

Try brave and courageous instead. By protecting the islands we saved the lives of both islanders and argentinians.

Like me to explain or are you ready to concede?

 

What principle? To defend the rights to a spurious self-determination 'argument' affecting 3,000 Brits living on a colonial outpost 8,000 miles away which runs contrary to the pragmatic economic interest of 60 million of their fellow citizens? Think about it and then maybe you will take off your union flag shorts and take down the union flag poster from your bedroom window.

 

We'll stick the union jack on HMS Astute and get our money's worth out of her.

 

I can't wait to see the tabloids headlines,

"HMS Astute disabled after bumping in HMS Antelope's remains, Argentinians celebrate what they call the invisible hand of god!"

 

The nations comprising Latin America including one of the fastest growing economies, Brazil - in addition to the vast majority of the nations of the world - support the Argentinian claim.

I am reminded of the joke about the woman watching the passing-out parade at Aldershot when asked how she thought it had gone, said 'it was wonderful but everybody was out of step except my Alex'.

The Falkland's lies on Argentina's continental shelf but lies 8,000 miles away from the UK. We seized it and put British settlers on it. The idea that a virtually bankrupt nation which can barely afford to keep its poor pensioner's warm in winter, can continue with this colonial pretense is frankly laughable, in my view. It seems to me to be a post-imperialist delusion and a 21st century anachronism.

It's a given that the people who comprise the nations of the world have a right to self-determination and naturally I support that right. But the Falkland's isn't a nation. The people who reside there are British citizens. Thus their rights of self-determination as British citizens apply to the nation state that is Britain.

In my view it's in our medium to long-term national interest that we remain on good terms with the growing economies of the countries that favour the Argentine claim. Economically, it makes pragmatic sense.

What doesn't make sense, is that we as a nation of 60+ million people undermine these interests by appealing to the narrow interests of 3,000 people 8,000 miles away on the basis of a disengenuous self-determination argument.

It seems to me that there are only one of two possible ways that we can end this impasse and that's for the UK government to either offer each of the Falklander's a substantial re-settlement package or, alternatively, to negotiate with Argentina - the pre-condition of which would be that the rights of UK citizens wouldn't be compromised. This could be settled within the UN.

If you recall, UK/Argentine negotiations in 1978-80 were taking place on these very issues so its not as though such matters are out of bounds. We were prepared to negotiate with fascists who ended up scuppering the talks so there ought to be no impediment to us offering a reconciliatory and potentially far more productive olive branch to the Argentina of 2012.

Part of the reason I supported the conflict in 1982 was due to the deliberate intention on the part of the Argentine junta to scupper negotiations.

 

Why...does one negotiate with burglars or car jackers?

 

Go ahead and explain yourself.

 

I believe he is politely referring to recent bio molecular research results which have isolated a gene which works like a "Bravery" trigger . As such , it is a prime defence event within the deep and more general "instinct " response mechanism that all creatures have --- an avoidance response , but linked to other behaviours which can increase survival probability by indirect behaviour as well as direct.
When applied to huge samples , split by race as one parameter , a " Bravery" national scale appeared .
As examples , the UK was third , Mexico 18th , USA 35th and Argentine 78th .On that simplified basis , the British will beat the Argentinians -- other things being equal , on a statistically significant level of 95% of occasions .
But things look bad for the US versus Mexico .
Interestingly this fits unscientific general " common sense" predictions .

 

Gladly.

By defeating the Junta we undermined their legitimacy and prepared the way for argentinas return to democracy.

Thus we saved countless rebellious teenagers from being drugged and thrown into the sea from helicopters. Or couples being executed and having their children given to supporters of the regime.

Guess you didnt know much about all this did you?


The hilarious thing is, you guys think we should just give the lives of our british subjects over to the sort of land where such barbarity was commonplace in the 20th century. All because you think we cant handle paying for them or their defence etc etc.....

 

The principle of self determination within a long defined polity. That one.

Its not spurious, its easily defensible on a range of grounds.

Your arguments that;

Its a vestige of colonialism - so are most places, and colonialism is ok if theres no one else to object. is there someone else whod have an equal claim?

Its too far away - By what measure? Australia remains in the commonwealth. Principle has no limits.

It runs contrary to our economic interests - economics is trumped by principle That wont even be so when oil is drilled. Besides it makes a great training ground for our troops.

Are all weak arguments that dont stand against the principle of letting falklanders choose their future.

Telling me to take down my union jack from my bedroom window, is just weak nonsense.

 

Ok if you say so.

My oh my why so snide?

I think the British character has changed. The Brits on the Falklands will either limp back to the sceptred isle or they will become Argentines. Britain's days of expeditionary warfare are over unless summoned by Uncle Sam.

 

It is crazy to project your unhappy experiences with Mexico onto the rest of the world .
I accept that Mexicans are becoming American citizens now , but your homeland has had quite a history of failure in the last 150 years . They need to move.
The pattern is the reverse here where south Americans will do anything to be part of the EPL
And that word "Loser" interestingly does not appear in the British Dictionary .
Unlike both Mexico and the US .

 

Some things just aren't meant to be. And none of this changes the fact that Britain can't hold the Falklands.

 

What are you talking about 'Albert'....Britain is holding onto the Falklands!

 

Bertie has lost his shine momentarily -- sounds like a stuck CD .
Alternatively , he has perfected a Time Machine but foolishly set it to a parallel Universe .

 

I don't think it is to the advantage of any of the British people's to hang onto the Falklands because they are very expensive and the legal position is not all that clear. On the other hand, ranting and near-historically-illiterate hatred from silly outsiders will keep the UK there forever: I suppose that is the point of all these half-witted re-enactment games - they are a way to the Perpetual Stoppage. B-O-R-I-N-G!

 

Yes, on the hypocrisy issue perhaps Americans can explain the dodgy business deal which bought Hawaii for them.