The Falklands - Who should own these godforsaken islands?

Discussion in 'Latest US & World News' started by Hendrix, Feb 11, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Heroclitus

    Heroclitus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,922
    Likes Received:
    265
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    It would seem that even on a historical "who got there first basis" that Argentina's claim is flawed. For me the argument of self determination is enough. The rule of the islands shall be determined by its inhabitants particularly as they have been in the islands for generations. If they choose British sovereignty for their islands, and Britain agrees then it is abosultely nothing to do with anyone else. The only possible argument that could be put against this, that the current inhabitants were recent transplants who had expelled the presumably Argentinian inhabitants by force, is palpably absurd as the current population have been there for generations. Those who have been born and grown up in a territory, together with those they welcome as immigrants, are the ones to decide. There are no refugees seeking a right to return. The islands are British and the campaign against this in Argentina is a scurrillous populist nationalist (the usual suspect for reactionary campaigns in quasi fascist Argentina) rabble rousing designed to rally disenchanted people around a mythical cause and divert them from their day to day problems.
     
  2. Nanninga

    Nanninga Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2010
    Messages:
    675
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Lol, as Great Britain always stuck to that rule.

    I don't see the problem for Argentina, they can build up a military presence in the region for neglectible cost while Britain would have to maintain an extremely expensive fleet.

    Maybe the Bristish SUN can mobilize Bristish chauvinism that would help to appease the population, but after a few years with such a military budget, the British public will prefer intact roads and equipped schools instead of a fleet in the South Atlantic.
     
  3. raymondo

    raymondo Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    Messages:
    4,296
    Likes Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Christine is in Hospital now for that operation , so the girly hysteria will fade away at least for a time . Such a silly woman .
    Anyway , with the number of huge train accidents , there soon won't be enough Argies left to row a boat .
     
  4. Iolo

    Iolo Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2011
    Messages:
    8,759
    Likes Received:
    126
    Trophy Points:
    63
    My own relatives there, I do assure you, are breeding like rabbits or Nineteenth Century English, and will soon need lebensraum. Better row your boat away, sharpish, or you'll be sweating away in a Gaiman tea-shop for nothing, like an unemployed Englisher for the tory herrenvolk! Ve haf ways of making you agree!
     
  5. raymondo

    raymondo Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    Messages:
    4,296
    Likes Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I can't lose , being" Halb Deutsch " , though I am loth to support an offshoot of Nazi Germany that , for a time , was more Nazi than the Reich itself .
    I am also not mad about the idea of supporting a country that let 30 , 000 top SS in after the Germans did a deal with the US and Argentina
     
  6. JIMV

    JIMV Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2009
    Messages:
    25,440
    Likes Received:
    852
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I would rephrase that idea a bit

    "The British should set an example for the Israelis. Let the British sell out the Falklands. The the British will have the immoral authority to tell the Israelis to sell out the settlers on the West Bank"
     
  7. raymondo

    raymondo Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    Messages:
    4,296
    Likes Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The suggested logic of your post is
    X . A reports action 1 to B
    Y . A advises B on action 2
    Somehow , The fact of X is relevant to Y .
    NOT
     
  8. Iolo

    Iolo Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2011
    Messages:
    8,759
    Likes Received:
    126
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Let the British pay of the settlers in the Falklands in the hope the Yanks will pay off the nazis in Palestine before they open death camps.
     
  9. Paris

    Paris Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2008
    Messages:
    4,394
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Oh vey, more stereotypes.

    Modern Germans do not see the Third Reich as something to admire anymore.

    But a sizeable amount of the UK populace still longs for the British Empire.

    Europeans ought to know who to look up to.
     
  10. Iolo

    Iolo Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2011
    Messages:
    8,759
    Likes Received:
    126
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Why do you address these naiveties to me, Paris?
     
  11. Paris

    Paris Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2008
    Messages:
    4,394
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Hahahaha. You think I am addressing you, here? Talk about being naive.

    I am merely commenting on the sort of example the UK is setting for Europeans, with their Falklands sovereignity claim, and how bad it is.
     
  12. raymondo

    raymondo Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    Messages:
    4,296
    Likes Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Like many French ladies , our little Lilly adopts this pose in lieu of thinking .
    It's a bit like ," Mais oui " and " Er herrr " , " Maintenant" , and "I ain't got a fuukkking clue" .
     
  13. Paris

    Paris Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2008
    Messages:
    4,394
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Lol, get back to me on that British thingy, circa 1594... when you have started thinking.
     
  14. raymondo

    raymondo Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    Messages:
    4,296
    Likes Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    63
    What's there to get back to ?
    We were there .
    You were not .
    Argentina didn't exist .
    The colonization of what is now modern Argentina came from Paraguay , Peru and Chile .
    Any questions?
     
  15. zulu1

    zulu1 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,220
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't want a war, do you? Irrespective of whether we negotiate or not, an Argentine attack is highly unlikely but it will be virtually non-existent if we engage in diplomacy. Our intrasigence will cost us dearly economically in the medium to long term. There will be no economic development in the Falklands unless Argentina agrees to it. Alongside her Latin American allies, Argentina can insist - if she so wishes - that no nautical or aviation activity takes place on or around these rocks. In collaboration with her allies, Argentina can effectively make the exploration for resources in the Falklands an impossibility. So this is another reason why it's in our interests to resolve this through negotiation.

    The Falklander's cannot simultaneously claim that they are British AND that they have a right of self-determination 8,000 miles away from Britain. Self-evidentally, these two things are mutually contradictory. Why can't you grasp that simple fact? In 1982 Argentina was a fascist dictatorship who scuppered negotiations that we were involved in over the same issues that you apparently think are now untenable, despite the fact that it makes pragmatic sense for us to do so. In 1982, the Falklander's were under a genuine threat for their lives and thus as UK citizen's we had a moral obligation to defend and protect these people. I supported the war in 1982 on that basis. To compare the situation now with then is simply and utterly prepostrous.
     
  16. zulu1

    zulu1 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,220
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    0

    It's not at all complicated. 3,000 people on the Falkland Islands are NOT Falklander's in terms of nationality because the Falkland's as a nation is non-existent - indeed the people of the Falkland's insist they want to remain citizens of the BRITISH NATION. It therefore follows that British people who are subjects of BRITISH NATION have the right to self-determination in BRITAIN.

    One cannot simultaneously claim that one is British AND that one has a right of self-determination 8,000 miles away from Britain. These two things are mutually contradictory. What can you not understand about that?

    The self-determination of Belgians, by definition, applies to Belgian's in Belgium. Equally, the self-determination of Brits, by definition, applies to Brits in Britain. Clearly logic isn't your strong point.
     
  17. Paris

    Paris Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2008
    Messages:
    4,394
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You were neither here nor there.
    Great Britain didn't exist.
    Argentina declared its independence from Spain in 1816.
     
  18. zulu1

    zulu1 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,220
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's about negotiating with a DEMOCRATIC nation the possibility of sharing the resources and sovereignty of the Falkland's. WE were negotiating on this very premise with a FASCIST JUNTA between 1978 and 1980. It's what civilized democracies in the 21st century do - they resolve their problems through negotiation. I repeat, a pre-condition of any negotiations will be the right of Brits on the Falkland's to remain British. Either that, or they have the option of being British in Britain. It makes pragamatic sense to negotiate.

    Folks on here cannot get there heads around this self-determination argument - it's laughable, as is the "argies" stuff. Geez, I thought jingoism had gone out of fashion.

    It's one of two things. Either we negotiate or this mess continues indefinetely and we risk another war. I know what I think is preferable. How about you? Will you be willing to put on your tin helmet and fight for the right of the Falklander's to remain British even though their right to remain British will be a pre-condition for any negotiations which the Argentinian's will accept?

    Or alternatively, will you be willing to let more of our people risk spilling their guts on Goose Green on behalf of British petroleum whilst simultaneously satisfying your appetite for jingoism?
     
  19. zulu1

    zulu1 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,220
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You have swallowed the propaganda without even realizing it, which is surprising for a supporter of the Palestinian's. Swallow, take a deep breath, have a cup of tea and think about the arguments in a rational and logical way. Because so far all you have displayed is jingoism.
     
  20. zulu1

    zulu1 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,220
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My argument is not contradictory at all..It cannot be that a population the size of small English rural village who live on a bunch of rocks 8,000 miles away effectively get to determine UK foreign and economic policy that impacts upon 65 million people. Keeping this charade going indefinetely will cost us more than it will benefit us over the medium to long-term.
     
  21. zulu1

    zulu1 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,220
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Huh? I haven't claimed that I don't support the right of self-determination of people. On the contrary, my line of reasoning is consistent with the fact that I do. Self-evidently and logically, the self-determination of British passport holders pertains to Britain. The Falklander's are British passport holders so their rights to self-determination are not relevant to the Falklands but to Britain. I don't know how else I can say this. I mean you still don't get it do you?

    Their wishes are not being ignored. Are they British?: Yes. Do they wish to remain British? Answer: Yes. Will they continue to be British irrespective of any negotiations? Answer: Yes.

    WE negotiated with China over another one of our colonial acquistions, Hong Kong. Similarly, it makes sense for us to negotiate with Argentina over the Falklands.
     
  22. zulu1

    zulu1 Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,220
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Heroclitus,

    Try looking at it like this. The people of Quebec decided in a referendum not to break away from Canada. They did so because their economic interests trumped - to use a French term - their 'chauvinism'. They realized that being a part of Canada with a strong amount of devolved power and autonomy was the best solution for them and in their best interests. In my view, it's also in the best interests, for example, of the devolved Scots to remain British and the Catalans and Basques to remain Spanish. It therefore makes sense for the Falklander's to adopt the same position, namely, that they remain British citizen's within the territory of Argentina.

    It's an absurdity for us to maintain this post-imperial and colonial pretense in the 21st century by remaining intrasigent over the Falkland Islands. Unlike 1982 the idea that Argentina will attack the Falklands even in the absence of the UK's lack of willingness to negotiate is, frankly, a virtual non-starter. The Argentinian's have the vast majority of world opinion on their side because this opinion understands that the notion of colonial outposts in the modern age are an anachronism.

    Moreover, they also understand that there are many more productive and practicable ways of 'skinning a cat' should the British not move over the Falklands. For example, they could make life very difficult for us by denying the potential for us to navigate for resources. Instead of our intrasigent stance we could be winning friends and influencing people rather than alienating them. When calibrated in terms of the medium to long terms costs involved, its plain silly for us to continue on our current trajectory.
     
  23. Heroclitus

    Heroclitus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,922
    Likes Received:
    265
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Did you forget the French Empire. I have seen the cell where Toussaint l'Ouverture died, in a freezing French castel (Chateua Joux I think by memory, near Besancon). Do you pretend that France has some sort of moral high ground in its imperial history?

    So you think France should give up its sovereignty claim on the DOM TOMs?

    Why exactly should Martinique be a part of the European union?

    Tell us about this example France is setting the world, please?
     
  24. Heroclitus

    Heroclitus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,922
    Likes Received:
    265
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Is this Welsh? Like Welsh, it has the odd English word in it. Like Welsh it is unintelligible to all but the Welsh.

    Clue: did another Welsh poster turn up on the forum somewhere and the two Welsh members start to talk in Welsh so we couldn't understand them?
     
  25. Heroclitus

    Heroclitus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,922
    Likes Received:
    265
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    The argument that cooperating with Argentina would be good for all has some merit, but it is so padded with erroneous bollocks that this needs to be dealt with first.

    Two major errors. Argentina cannot prevent aviation and nautical activity - according to you. Britain can easily establish air supremacy because it has what it lacked in 1982 which is a proper military airfield with the requisite anti-aircraft defence. It can also establish naval supremacy under the cover of air supremacy. Britain's miltary superiority over Argentina is unquestioned.

    Your argument is better put if you say that the economic development of the islands natural resources would benefit from Argentine cooperation, and be more commercially viable. This of course is true as it would be much better for both the Falklanders adn Argentina if a joint development took place and oil was pipelined two hundred and fifty miles to Argentina rather than put on oil tankers in the Falklands. Argentina chose nationalist sabre rattling rather than this sort of cooperation when they withdrew from commercial cooperation unilaterally in recent years.

    The second point you make is just sovereignty. You argue that nationality is geographically defined. I argue that all peoples should choose their system of government including their sovereign status and Head of State. Your argument would also suggest that Bermuda should be ceded to the USA notwithstanding the inhabitants wishes - and if they want to be British they can all go to Britain. What's the difference between Bermuda and the Falklands in this regard?

    On the same basis France should give up all its overseas territories, despite them even being reprersented in the French parlaiment, because they are so far away from France.

    Hawaii, is a long way from the USA; should it be American or should we mesure the distance to the nearest big nation?

    Should American Samoa be given to say New Zealand?

    Who gets Guam? The Phillippines? Japan? What business has it being American when the USA is so far away?

    Or is your argument that sovereignty depnds merely on the self interest of the mother nation. You should be clear.

    Let's widen it a bit to independent nations who choose strange Heads of State. Should Canada be annexed by the USA because it is ruled by an English Queen (who is its Head of State)? You keep arguing that people in the South Atlantic have no right to determine who their head of state is, why should the people of Canada then? If they love the Queen so much let them go and live in Windsor. If Bermudans want to be British so much, let them move to Birmingham. Can't you see how abusive your argument is?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page