The Falkland Islands

[innonimatu]

Originally Posted by imperialman

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.

Well, there is a reason why the UK never got rid of those tiny islands around the world, when it got rid of its larger colonies. And it isn't just that no guerillas are sustainable there.

No, the dismembering of empires happens when territories not really controllable by the elites in the capital start demanding a proportional share of power there. Threatened with displacement from their position of power those elites almost always choose to cut out those imperial territories. The whole history of the dissolution of the British Empire was like that, starting with the rebellious americans, then the Dominions of South Africa, Australia and Canada which would not get representation at Westminster, and finally India and all the other African and Asian Colonies. It almost came to civil war over Ireland. And the Americans who went for gradual imperial expansion with incorporation of new territories and sharing of power did came to civil war over that sharing of power. Oh, wait, it was supposedly just about slavery, I forget...

Anyway, my point is that the reason the Falklands remained is that those islands can even easily be granted "representation": they're so small that their weight at the capital is negligible. Likewise for the former French, Dutch, etc Empires (I'm not sure about the dutch, but the french did organize their overseas territories as one more departmént).
And in this sense they remain imperial territories, even with representation: they're absolutely dominated from afar, because of their smallness. And they would remain imperial territories whether it the the UK or Argentina that controls them.

[Takhisis]

You certainly have a point there.

The Falklands are in an imperial position because not even the most delusional Falklander would say they're 'equal' to the government in Britain. The troops are not local for one thing. The Falklands will always be dependent to a greater or smaller degree on the outside, they can't be hermits.
As I said before, cooperation with Argentina I only inevitable. But both sides have to stop being so idiotic about it.

It *did* come to a war with Ireland btw.

[Traitorfish]

Originally Posted by Takhisis

It *did* come to a war with Ireland btw.

That was a war to get Ireland out of the union, though, not over its constitutional position within it.

[Takhisis]

The same could be said of the U.S. war of independence.

[imperialman]

Originally Posted by Takhisis

You certainly have a point there.

The Falklands are in an imperial position because not even the most delusional Falklander would say they're 'equal' to the government in Britain. The troops are not local for one thing. The Falklands will always be dependent to a greater or smaller degree on the outside, they can't be hermits.
As I said before, cooperation with Argentina I only inevitable. But both sides have to stop being so idiotic about it.

It *did* come to a war with Ireland btw.

I think the islanders are happy with the constitutional arrangements as they are, they don't want to be part of Britain. Not that I'm suggesting you meant that, just thought I'd point it out.

[Traitorfish]

Originally Posted by Takhisis

The same could be said of the U.S. war of independence.

Yes and no. The American rebels didn't even think about independence until the war was well underway, while the First Dáil had been declared as the legislature of an independent Irish Republic before the war even began. Both cases represented a failure of the British imperial system, but in quite different ways.

[Takhisis]

Originally Posted by imperialman

I think the islanders are happy with the constitutional arrangements as they are, they don't want to be part of Britain. Not that I'm suggesting you meant that, just thought I'd point it out.

They want to remain a colony, no more and no less.

Originally Posted by Traitorfish

Yes and no. The American rebels didn't even think about independence until the war was well underway, while the First Dáil had been declared as the legislature of an independent Irish Republic before the war even began. Both cases represented a failure of the British imperial system, but in quite different ways.

Hence my 'could be said of' instead of 'applies to'.

[bathsheba666]

As the US are pressing for us to talk to Argentina, are they also preparing to withdraw from Diego Garcia ?

[Mad Man]

Good, send those poor islanders back home.

[Silurian]

Originally Posted by Mad Man

Good, send those poor islanders back home.

Yes the US should allow them back but it maybe already too late.

[VRWCAgent]

Originally Posted by bathsheba666

As the US are pressing for us to talk to Argentina, are they also preparing to withdraw from Diego Garcia ?

Why the hell are we taking this stance? I cannot believe this. Obama starts his term by betraying Poland, and is wrapping it up by betraying our closest friggin' ally in the world??

[say1988]

This isn't anything new. pretty sure Bush held the same policy. Argentina was name a major non-NATO ally by Clinton.
It won't cost the US anything more than a bit of ing by the UK (it will not put any alliance at risk) while it puts the US in a position to gain with much of Latin America.
Since it is still extremely unlikely anything will actually happen the US has nothing to lose.

[innonimatu]

Originally Posted by VRWCAgent

Why the hell are we taking this stance? I cannot believe this. Obama starts his term by betraying Poland, and is wrapping it up by betraying our closest friggin' ally in the world??

Don't worry, your allies got used to it long ago. Those eastern europeans might have been shocked, but that was because they were still naive.

[VRWCAgent]

Then I guess the only positive is we never Czechoslovakia'd or Hungary'd any of our allies...

[uat2d]

Originally Posted by VRWCAgent

Why the hell are we taking this stance? I cannot believe this. Obama starts his term by betraying Poland, and is wrapping it up by betraying our closest friggin' ally in the world??

Originally Posted by innonimatu

Don't worry, your allies got used to it long ago. Those eastern europeans might have been shocked, but that was because they were still naive.

Originally Posted by VRWCAgent

Then I guess the only positive is we never Czechoslovakia'd or Hungary'd any of our allies...

What are these backstabs you're talking about and could you leave some links so I can learn more about them?

[VRWCAgent]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...346840666.html

http://en.mercopress.com/2012/02/16/...militarization

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Spring

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungari...lution_of_1956

[uat2d]

Thanks, that was a good read, yeah, the USA still hasn't invaded any puppet state yet, but still, that's not really a good guideline.

As for the missile defense system, I'm guessing he wants to show the Russians he means no harm, it's not like Poland or any of its neighbors can hurt USA's interests as much as Russia can, and since we're all EU, we'll all continue to deal with the USA's crap without even calling them out on their BS.

[Cutlass]

Well, to be fair that missile defense system in Poland was a major dumbass idea in the first place.

[Mad Man]

Originally Posted by VRWCAgent

Then I guess the only positive is we never Czechoslovakia'd or Hungary'd any of our allies...

You mean like Guatemala? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Gu..._d%27%C3%A9tat

[VRWCAgent]

Guatemala invaded by Guatemalans? Not quite the same thing. Also, and more directly related, not exactly our ally.