imperialman
Admiral
The recent Russian carrier adventure didn't cause too many eyebrows to be raised I don't think.
The Falkland Islands
- Thread starter imperialman
- Start date
The recent Russian carrier adventure didn't cause too many eyebrows to be raised I don't think.
warpus
In pork I trust
What was that again? Actually, it doesn't matter, it's getting really OT.. The U.S. is never sending an aircraft carrier to the region anyway
Let us post a disclaimer here: I'm playing devil's advocate, if only because I'm the only person here who lives in Argentina and has endured their educational system. Assuming that Argentina is the devil of course.
The Falklands as is doesn't change my life one jot, and I don't even think of them most of the time. What's them to me? Short-term? Nothing. Mid-term? Nothing. Long-term? Also nothing. I don't think they *should* or *shouldn't* be Argentine. I do think that Argentina might be a better long-term option for the Falklanders if and only if Argentina becomes a serious country.
From the people themselves you'll obviously hear from those who're more passionate about it, most neutrals will simply shut up to have a quieter life.
Didn't the same apply to the Hong Kong-born caucasians in 1999? I'm surprised the Argentines haven't tried that one yet.
EDIT: One more thing: no one's answered about the U.N. resolutions which London keeps ignoring time and again.
Don't tell me I don't have a point because I do.
I've edited my post to make it less equivocal, I posted at nearly three in the morning and I was a bit dizzy already.
The Falklands as is doesn't change my life one jot, and I don't even think of them most of the time. What's them to me? Short-term? Nothing. Mid-term? Nothing. Long-term? Also nothing. I don't think they *should* or *shouldn't* be Argentine. I do think that Argentina might be a better long-term option for the Falklanders if and only if Argentina becomes a serious country.
luiz said:
It's nearby/theystoleitfromus/successor state to Spain + a huge overinflated nationalist ego. Most people on the street don't really care and know their lives won't change over a couple rocks floating in the Atlantic but the government finds it really useful to blame the evil English invaders and it is a good base to continue their nationalist-populist rethoric.
From the people themselves you'll obviously hear from those who're more passionate about it, most neutrals will simply shut up to have a quieter life.
'Back' to the… Mapuche? The same Mapuche who are not native to this land, who did exterminate all the tribes that lived in what's now Patagonia and proceeded to attack the Argentine Confederation because they made a living off cattle raids? Those Mapuche? You can do better than that, Virote.I didn't realise that wasn't the default position to take?
There's not much of a view in the UK at least that Gibraltar need be ceded to anyone else especially.
Furthermore, what gives the settled-for-200-years Falkland population any less of a right to be there than the settled-for-not-significantly-much-longer Argentine population? Give Argentina back to the Mapuche, and maybe we'll talk Malvinas.
I do agree that Cameron is an arse, but Cameron being an arse isn't the crux of Falklands issue for the Brits - the rights for the protection of self-identified British citizens is.
They've only been British for 29 years, Virote. I'm trying not to play devil's advocate but they haven't been British all the time since the 1830s.Virote_Considon said:
Didn't the same apply to the Hong Kong-born caucasians in 1999? I'm surprised the Argentines haven't tried that one yet.
EDIT: One more thing: no one's answered about the U.N. resolutions which London keeps ignoring time and again.
Waste of money from Cameron, Argentina simply cannot invade.
It'd make Salmond shut up. Surely five million overweight bagpipe-playing pizza-and-mars-bars-frying lunatics are worth less than making Salmond shut up for good?
Don't tell me I don't have a point because I do.
imperialman
Admiral
I'm not sure the Uti Possidetis Juris principle applies to the islands.
1514?
I'm one of those!Surely five million overweight bagpipe-playing pizza-and-mars-bars-frying lunatics are worth less than making Salmond shut up for good?
Don't tell me I don't have a point because I do.
imperialman
Admiral
You´d think both countries would have more important things to deal with...
I do believe governments are capable of multi-tasking.
You´d think both countries would have more important things to deal with...
They might be fairly unimportant economically and culturally, but territorial integrity is fairly important in and of itself. And from the British point of view, even if its only a few thousand people, doesn't it seem wrong to completely sell down the river a group of people which you claim to represent?
Virote_Considon
The Great Dictator
If they're not native then where did they come from and who pushed them there? (Because let's face it, they ain't some kind of Euro-scale settler-colony endevour).They were occupied briefly ~29 years ago, but the occupation was repulsed.
That's like saying France has only been French for ~67 years. Preposterous. You can do better than that, Takh.
No. Hong Kong was always on lease and always had a set time it had to be returned by. And Hong Kong wasn't such a clean-cut affair, either - a sizeable amount of residents wanted to be returned to China (again, no comparison with China), and towards the end there was even quite an assassination spree to try to get it to hurry along.
London ignores them because they (the UN) are wrong. Entering negotiations would be proving that Argentina's claim rests on somewhat valid points. Which it does not in the UK's eyes.
Actually, you do not have a point - worse than Salmond not shutting up is Salmond shutting up only because he's the smuggest man on EarthIt'd make Salmond shut up. Surely five million overweight bagpipe-playing pizza-and-mars-bars-frying lunatics are worth less than making Salmond shut up for good?
Don't tell me I don't have a point because I do.
I do believe governments are capable of multi-tasking.
Quackers
The Frog
So we tried jaw-to-jaw but they wanted war! After 17 years they couldn't even muster a decent case for the islands! Atm the soveriegnty of the Falklands is non-negotiatble which is the right POV.
Technically you are correct. British nationality law is somewhat complex.
Prior to 1949 they were officially "British Subjects" but this status equally applied to the entire Empire (including the Falkland Islands and the United Kingdom) and as far as I am aware there was no legal designation of "Citizen".
In 1949 Falkland Islanders became Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, just like any Englishman or Scot. Though in the following decades there were restrictions on immigrateion to the UK (aimed at Asians and Africans, of course).
On January 1, 1983 they became British Dependent Territory Citizen (later renamed British Overseas Territory Citizen) where they did have slightly different rights than British Citizens (UK, Isle of Mann, and Channel Islands). Based on a law passed in 1981.
In March 1983 they retroactively became full British Citizens as of January 1, 1983.
In 2002 the vast majority of British Overseas Territory Citizens became British Citizens.
As for Hong Kong, it is slightly more complicated because Hong Kong was always leased from China, not annexed.
Yes, but multitasking is bad for you!I do believe governments are capable of multi-tasking.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Most of us are also English, which I think is maybe relevant?
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Sorry for the double post, but the Daily Mash's take is golden...
Cameron attacks Argentina's half-arsed colonialism
David Cameron has offered to show Argentina how to swagger around in someone else's country properly.
Nelson wouldn't go whingeing to the UN, he'd just blow it up
As Argentina requested negotiations on the sovereignty of the Falklands, the increasingly shiny-faced premier asked why they did not just turn up with half a dozen ships filled with musket-carrying soldiers and plans for a railway system.
Cameron told MPs: "Lord Palmerston once described diplomacy as 'the homosexual foreplay of the irredeemably foreign'.
"Argentina's attempt at building an empire is the gayest thing I've ever seen. If Pitt the Younger had been this poofy Scotland would have been Swedish since the late 18th Century."
Downing Street sources suggested Cameron is trying to get Argentina to fight back so he can have a bit of a war, arguing that 'you don't mess with the classics'.
Tory backbencher Denys Finch-Hatton said: "While the prime minister understands that killing terrified Argentinean conscripts has always made political sense, on a more fundamental level he's yielding to his ancestral urge to growl at dagoes and sip gin on a veranda.
"It offends his sensibilities to see someone try to construct a reasonable argument about sovereignty when they could just shoot everyone.
"When he was speaking in the House I could see his hand reaching for an invisible swagger stick with which to clout the Argentine president.
"Brought a tear to my eye, so it did."
I'm not sure either but it's been claimed at some point in the past.
Not just that, there's been a few calling for both countries to sit down and have talks.
Obese, bagpipe-playing, pizza-and-mars-bars-frying, or all three?I'm one of those!
Depends. Do they have Windows Vista on their computers?I do believe governments are capable of multi-tasking.You´d think both countries would have more important things to deal with...
They were an independent nomadic nation who came eastward from over the Andes mountains in search for plunder much like the Central Asian people raiding their neighbours' countries.
Their homeland to the West is now under Chilean control.
No, no, no, you're making a strawman there, Virote. I mean what say1988 answered in detail. The kelpers were second-class citizens until after the war.Virote_Considon said:
No, that's only the New Territories. The island of Hong Kong itself was ceded in perpetuity and a Crown Colony was later established there. But you gave it back to the Chinese together with the New Territories because they had the clout to force you to.Virote_Considon said:
Wait, what? Negotiating with someone proves they have a valid point? I assume that in every hostage situation we should simply refuse to negotiate and once the criminals have run out of hostages we send in a SWAT team, right?Virote_Considon said:
The smuggest man on Earth? Wouldn't the English be smug they've finally got rid of bagpipe music and skirts?Virote_Considon said:Actually, you do not have a point - worse than Salmond not shutting up is Salmond shutting up only because he's the smuggest man on Earth
*cof, cof*
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
"Us" in the sense of "in the UK", rather than "are English".
No. They only had different status for 3 months after the war based on a law passed before it. There were certain rights that in the 1960s and 1970s were removed from citizenship, that is all. And just because there are multiple classes of citizenship doesn't mean any group wasn't British citizens.
The British should just sell the Falklands to Argentina for a very high price. They'd probably pay anything they thought they could afford. Problem solved, and only ~3000 people would be inconvenienced! Unless of course the price was so high that the Argentines have another debt crisis...
warpus
In pork I trust
They should trade the Islas Malvinas for Messi.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Objecitivism isn't a rationalist school of philosophy.Welcome to Objectivism, glad you could join us
