The Falkland Islands
- Thread starter imperialman
- Start date
Lambert Simnel
One across
I guess I can see that that is the only relevant factor from your perspective. Can you see that there are other points of view that might think there is more to it than that?
There is nothing else that should be considered. It isn't like the British suddenly brought over a bunch of people to shift popular opinion. The people that have been on the islands for generations want to remain British, not just the new ones.
Anything questionable occurred 180 years ago and no participants are alive today.
Anything questionable occurred 180 years ago and no participants are alive today.
aelf
Ashen One
If the Falklanders wanted to be part of Argentina tomorrow, I'd imagine a few of the people here wouldn't change their tack anyway. I'd be interested to see what their rationale for the UK keeping the Falklands would be then.
Lambert Simnel
One across
That's a nice, simple and straightforward view of the world. Personally, I think it's more complex than that, as does the doctor of international law referenced in the article, the US government, and the UN.
Silurian
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,567
imperialman
Admiral
ARGENTINA SETS OUT TO WOO SCOTS
ARGENTINA is trying to drum up support from Scotland for its claim to the Falkland Islands.
It is considering sending representatives to join Scottish celebrations of the 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn.
First minister Alex Salmond hopes to hold a referendum on Scottish independence in 2014 when the country marks Robert the Bruces victory over the English and Argentina hopes to use the event to drive a wedge between England and Scotland.
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/303261/Argentina-sets-out-to-woo-Scots
Speaking as a Scot this was a double take moment for me... this article can't be serious can it?
ARGENTINA is trying to drum up support from Scotland for its claim to the Falkland Islands.
It is considering sending representatives to join Scottish celebrations of the 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn.
First minister Alex Salmond hopes to hold a referendum on Scottish independence in 2014 when the country marks Robert the Bruces victory over the English and Argentina hopes to use the event to drive a wedge between England and Scotland.
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/303261/Argentina-sets-out-to-woo-Scots
Speaking as a Scot this was a double take moment for me... this article can't be serious can it?
Lambert Simnel
One across
Actually, all the Argentinian politician said was, "We are analysing the possibility of sending a delegation to the celebrations of the Scottish victory." I'm not sure how senior Senor Kunkel is, but regardless, it's the Express reporter's interpretation that it this is an attempt to "drum up support from Scotland for (Argentina's) claim to the Falkland Islands", or that "Argentina hopes to use the event to drive a wedge between England and Scotland."
UK newspapers are somewhat unreliable about interpreting the actions and statements of Argentina's government - I'd trust them just as much as I'd trust an Argentinian newspaper's view of UK government policy.
UK newspapers are somewhat unreliable about interpreting the actions and statements of Argentina's government - I'd trust them just as much as I'd trust an Argentinian newspaper's view of UK government policy.
Quackers
The Frog
Are you seriously considering this act is in good faith on behalf of the Argentine government? It's obviously a ploy to wind us up 
Is it wrong of me that whenever I think of Argentina I think of this?
Hrm.... trying that again. Not sure what happened.
http://www./v/977147e5
Okay, this is weird. CFC keep stripping/altering it. wwwDOTviddlerDOTcomSLASHvSLASH977147e5
http://www./v/977147e5
Okay, this is weird. CFC keep stripping/altering it. wwwDOTviddlerDOTcomSLASHvSLASH977147e5
Silurian
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,567
I can just imagine you in the role of Che
I prefer this one which got to number 1 in UK.
I quite liked it at the time but would not have admitted it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW4GYaJHSD8
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,060
I know I wouldn't. Call me conservative, but if it's part of a state, it should remain part of a state. (Is "sovereignism" a word?) No further separatism either. It's always just a fight for power with people as cannon fodder.
If that could become an universal rule we'd have fewer wars. It can't, of course.
Lambert Simnel
One across
Are you seriously considering this act is in good faith on behalf of the Argentine government? It's obviously a ploy to wind us up
I wasn't claiming it was an act of good faith, nor am I sure this is actually on behalf of the Argentinian government, as opposed to one politico mouthing off (and every country has some of those). But I seriously doubt it's an attempt to try and get Scottish support for the Argentinian stance on the Malvinas (as the Express is pretending) - it's more likely to be just a way of cocking a snook at the English.
I'm devil's attorney, need a lantern and some way to produce an evil laughter.
The thing is, as I say below, I'd follow a completely different strategy.
The vice-president himself has been caught red-handed in a large-scale corruption scandal and the government's clammed up, mostly because they're afraid someone might make a slip. Obviously this is just a smokescreen, no real plan or solution besides the grand gestures has been proposed.
Why do I have to prove evidence of something that I didn't claim? No one consulted the Islanders themselves, their government was consulted and they agreed.
All you do is misrepresent whatever people who disagree with you post, then make fun of them. Or else ignore it, just like you've completely ignored even your very own BBC as posted by Lambert.
.
I disagree with your general position. The world is not working and change is needed, many times the best way is to just redraw the borders.
Should Tibet and Xinjiang remain under Chinese oppression? Should the Kurds forever settle down and renounce their wish for a country of their own? If we go back in time for a couple decades, should the Soviet Union have remained the way it was? Farther back in time, should the State of Israel have been created out of separating territory from Palestine? Should said territories have been ripped off the Ottoman Empire? We can go on forever.
But then, today there was a train crash with about 50 dead and over 650 wounded so nobody's paying much attention to a bunch of sheep-and-penguin-covered rocks in the middle of nowhere.
Now, can someone explain to me why a mere three thousand people have so much leverage over London?
And can someone explain to me why Thatcheron's Tories insist on making it seem like Argentina is going to invade? What's this having warplanes escort a civilian plane, while hinting that there might be a submarine with nuclear weapons and all this nonsense talk about having to get a carrier to the South Atlantic? Philip Hammond says Argentina's not a military threat, why keep upping the ante?
And why are Labour being even more of a bunch of dickheads about it?
To state it you need to have a conversation which London and Port Stanley refuse to do in spite of even the UN and the US saying they should.
A bad one prima facie, except that that was done under a US_sponsored military dictatorship whose members have been tried and jailed for crimes against humanity (stealing children, drugging people and throwing them alive into the sea to drown, torture of several kinds, unwarranted executions, etc. etc. by the thousands) since, many of them have died in jail and the rest of them will, too.
The thing is, as I say below, I'd follow a completely different strategy.
I have a list of items.
Have you read my first or second post in this thread, where I posted that it'd be a great option for the Falklanders IF Argentina became a serious country?Ayn Rand said:
The vice-president himself has been caught red-handed in a large-scale corruption scandal and the government's clammed up, mostly because they're afraid someone might make a slip. Obviously this is just a smokescreen, no real plan or solution besides the grand gestures has been proposed.
The treaty was never signed because the President of Argentina DIED. Did you even read the interview I posted?
Why do I have to prove evidence of something that I didn't claim? No one consulted the Islanders themselves, their government was consulted and they agreed.
*sigh* Again, when did I ever say that the Islanders wanted to join Argentina? I don't have to prove things I'm not claiming, you know.
Imperialist? They had territory off their coast invaded and they want it back, it'd be imperialism if they were trying to take Jersey or Orkney.Quackers said:
My posts make no sense only because any argument I or any others not on your side might post you claim either makes no sense or is irrelevent.Quackers said:
All you do is misrepresent whatever people who disagree with you post, then make fun of them. Or else ignore it, just like you've completely ignored even your very own BBC as posted by Lambert.
It's not a move by the Argentine government itself, but by a trade union.
Well of course, I'm not in favour of strongarming them into this. I don't agree with most of this charade from either side. Argentina not recognising the Falklands flag in shpping matters is one thing (I'd simply allow them in under the British flag or any other flag of convenience)
So his main arguments for Scotland staying -after admitting that Scotland could make it on its own- are the 'great' things achieved together such as the Opium Wars, the slave trade, widespread genocide and linguicide across the world, the Treaty of Versailles, forcing the Turks to join the Axis in WWI to rip off some of their land, etc. etc.; also that it'd be a hassle. And more importantly, that he'd be very sad. Great!
First of all, thanks for your honesty (not many people admit to such positions)
.I disagree with your general position. The world is not working and change is needed, many times the best way is to just redraw the borders.
Should Tibet and Xinjiang remain under Chinese oppression? Should the Kurds forever settle down and renounce their wish for a country of their own? If we go back in time for a couple decades, should the Soviet Union have remained the way it was? Farther back in time, should the State of Israel have been created out of separating territory from Palestine? Should said territories have been ripped off the Ottoman Empire? We can go on forever.
Let's see… since Scotland is, unfortunately, not a sovereign state, its government has no say over this matter. If Scotland became a sovereign country (with or without a Windsor as figurehead monarch) it still would have no say unless somehow the Falklands decided to become part of this new independent Scotland instead of a United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland. Either way, waste of time IMHO.
Sticking a finger up English arses is a very pleasant thought, but, first of all. Mr. Kunkel is part of the late President Kirchner's friends who are being ousted from power. Some of them will remain if they're sycophantically obsequent enough. Most of them are in the process of being cleared out, it's an internal purge that will go on for the next year or so. Since Mr. Kunkel is onyl one deputy out of over 250, I wouldn't worry too much, especially since Congress has been rendered useless and the Executive has taken over legislation by decree. All Congress does is renew the emergenc laws every year to allow the President to go on decreeing whatever she likes.
But then, today there was a train crash with about 50 dead and over 650 wounded so nobody's paying much attention to a bunch of sheep-and-penguin-covered rocks in the middle of nowhere.
Now, can someone explain to me why a mere three thousand people have so much leverage over London?
And can someone explain to me why Thatcheron's Tories insist on making it seem like Argentina is going to invade? What's this having warplanes escort a civilian plane, while hinting that there might be a submarine with nuclear weapons and all this nonsense talk about having to get a carrier to the South Atlantic? Philip Hammond says Argentina's not a military threat, why keep upping the ante?
And why are Labour being even more of a bunch of dickheads about it?
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,060
If you really want my opinion: yes, yes, most certainly yes, now that's created it should keep its borders and simply end the apartheid, and that was the outcome of it entering a war.
imperialman
Admiral
Britain first settled the islands in 1765, what then could constitute Argentina (Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata I believe) hadn't even expanded into Patagonia. 1833 was the re-establishment of British rule by removing what it saw as an illegal Argentine authority. It most certainly wasn't Argentine territory.
Also, Imperialism, as defined by Dictionary of Human Geography, is "the creation and/or maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination". I don't see how that applies to the Falklands.
Hmmm, OK
All I was saying was that it's ridiculous to claim that Argentina is an imperialist country as it's had both internal and external policy dictated by NATO/the U.S. (and before the 1930s by the British Empire).imperialman said:
And, hey, all the 'Overseas territories' are former 'Crown Colonies'. It's a change of name. Let's see, it's part of an empire. Isn't that a bit imperialistic?
Calling Argentina imperialist or colonialist is just a hypocritical act of provocation.
