Who should own the Falklands?

[Ayatollah So]

Nobody should own the Falklands, or any other piece of land for that matter. People didn't create land, so they shouldn't own it - not in the way we usually think about "ownership", anyway. But that's off topic.

As to the intended question - which government, if any, the people there should associate themselves with - why, whichever they choose, of course.

 

[Virote_Considon]

It'd make my life very much easier if they belonged to Argentina (as my opinion is contary to that of the natives), but it's not going to happen anytime soon.

How would it make your life any easier?

Regardless of the kelpers' desires, what would be best for all parties (Britain, Argentina, the Falklands) involved?

The current arrangement suits 2/3 parties just fine. You're not going to get any better than that.

When we break away from the English yoke then the Falklands won't have anything to do with us. Up to that point, I guess I'll have to worry about it.

Why? If it's possible that Septic beat Rangers (not today, mwahahahah) then it is possible that the SNP might get a decent leadership, clear purposes and carry it forward.

What makes you think the majority of Scots want independence? The recent successes of the SNP have partly to do with the fact that they stated in their manifesto that they were going to put the independence issue on the back burner.

 

[Mad Man]

Argentina should never get the Falklands, because Falklanders speak English and if the Spanish speaking Argentines take control they'll be mean to the English speakers. To further my claim I saw a video of an Argentine solder yelling at a three year old little Falkland girl in Spanish during the Falkland war, the girl didn't understand what the solder was saying because she didn't speak Spanish, so the Argentine solder removed his pistol from his holster and pistol whipped the little girl, and as she waddled away crying the Argentine solder was standing there with his hands on his hips laughing maniacally saying "that teaches you for being English".

 

[Yared]

¡¡¿¿Los habitantes de Argentina no hablan ingles?!?!?!

 

[Flying Pig]

Argentina should never get the Falklands, because Falklanders speak English and if the Spanish speaking Argentines take control they'll be mean to the English speakers. To further my claim I saw a video of an Argentine solder yelling at a three year old little Falkland girl in Spanish during the Falkland war, the girl didn't understand what the solder was saying because she didn't speak Spanish, so the Argentine solder removed his pistol from his holster and pistol whipped the little girl, and as she waddled away crying the Argentine solder was standing there with his hands on his hips laughing maniacally saying "that teaches you for being English".

To be fair to the argies, a lot of them can do english as well as Brits can do french. Luckily a few tommies (and I assume a fair few falklanders) speak spanish so that when we give them a rightly-deserved thrashing we can tell them directions back home.

 

[The Imp]

I figured as much Takhisis. In that case, I site the almighty wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_non-NATO_ally

Benefits

Nations named as major non-NATO allies are eligible for the following benefits:

* entry into cooperative research and development projects with the Department of Defense (DoD) on a shared-cost basis
* participation in certain counter-terrorism initiatives
* purchase of depleted uranium anti-tank rounds
* priority delivery of military surplus (ranging from rations to ships)
* possession of War Reserve Stocks of DoD-owned equipment that are kept outside of American military bases
* loans of equipment and materials for cooperative research and development projects and evaluations
* permission to use American financing for the purchase or lease of certain defense equipment
* reciprocal training
* expedited export processing of space technology
* permission for the country's corporations to bid on certain DoD contracts for the repair and maintenance of military equipment outside the United States

MNNA isn't an informal title I have concocted, but an actual official designation used by the US. It of course doesn't mean that said nation is a actual "Major Power" that can carry on a sustained war(Bahrain is also a MNNA, and would be absolutely crushed if a big neighbor looked at it the wrong way, though I doubt that such an event would occur).


Glad I could clear that up for you.

 

[JohnRM]

Yes lets give the Island to Argentina when the islanders clearly want to be British - self determination

So very much this.

 

[Takhisis]

How would it make your life any easier?

I wouldn't have to flinch when asked who the islands belong to. I'm in enemy territory, after all. It's either lie through my teeth or fall into patriotic lies like 'las Malvina siempre fueron y serán argentinas'. Ugh!

The current arrangement suits 2/3 parties just fine. You're not going to get any better than that.

I wish there was one which suited all 3 parties.

What makes you think the majority of Scots want independence? The recent successes of the SNP have partly to do with the fact that they stated in their manifesto that they were going to put the independence issue on the back burner.

Most Scots don't have a defined stance because they simply don't care , which makes it even worse. But that's not the point of this particular thread.

¡¡¿¿Los habitantes de Argentina no hablan ingles?!?!?!

Local language is Spanish, people in the big cities from the middle and upper classes understand English and can communicate to a degree, but it's nothing like a native speaker or a professional interpreter. And, they speak mostly Yankee English.

I figured as much Takhisis. In that case, I site the almighty wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_non-NATO_ally



MNNA isn't an informal title I have concocted, but an actual official designation used by the US. It of course doesn't mean that said nation is a actual "Major Power" that can carry on a sustained war(Bahrain is also a MNNA, and would be absolutely crushed if a big neighbor looked at it the wrong way, though I doubt that such an event would occur).


Glad I could clear that up for you.

I see, thanks, I hadn't heard of it before. But, from what I've seen around here, there's practically no use for Argentina. Bahrain, at least, is in a global hotspot next to Iran. I'd think that Colombia or Brazil would be far better choices as MNNAs than Argentina.

 

[klaidonis]

The UK.

Because the Britishs created Canada, Australia and the USA (though the Americans tend to deny it), but the Latino Americans created only Simón Bolívar, Hugo Chávez, and Mexican revolutions.

 

[Takhisis]

Don't forget Pancho Villa and mariachis.

 

[Yared]

Local language is Spanish, people in the big cities from the middle and upper classes understand English and can communicate to a degree, but it's nothing like a native speaker or a professional interpreter. And, they speak mostly Yankee English.

Ah, yeah I guess it might be hard for some to understand British English.

 

[BCLG100]

The UK.

Because the Britishs created Canada, Australia and the USA (though the Americans tend to deny it), but the Latino Americans created only Simón Bolívar, Hugo Chávez, and Mexican revolutions.

I would say this is one of the least compelling arguments i have seen. The 'Britishs' 'created' Australia largely as a dumping ground for its problems, Canada and America can hardly to be considered 'created' by the British- certainly they had a large part in there beginnings but it could probably be more aptly argued that the millions of immigrants 'created' Britain.

The reasonable argument behind Britain owning the Falklands is that they already do, the Argentines surrendered the Islands nearly 30 years ago and the inhabitants wish to remain under British rule.

 

[The Imp]

I wouldn't have to flinch when asked who the islands belong to. I'm in enemy territory, after all. It's either lie through my teeth or fall into patriotic lies like 'las Malvina siempre fueron y serán argentinas'. Ugh!

I wish there was one which suited all 3 parties.

Most Scots don't have a defined stance because they simply don't care , which makes it even worse. But that's not the point of this particular thread.

Local language is Spanish, people in the big cities from the middle and upper classes understand English and can communicate to a degree, but it's nothing like a native speaker or a professional interpreter. And, they speak mostly Yankee English.

I see, thanks, I hadn't heard of it before. But, from what I've seen around here, there's practically no use for Argentina. Bahrain, at least, is in a global hotspot next to Iran. I'd think that Colombia or Brazil would be far better choices as MNNAs than Argentina.

Well, Brazil is a pretty big country, the top power in South America. Why does it need the help and subordination, along with damage to national pride? Plus, it isn't like the US is just giving away help, it expects something in return. Brazil doesn't need the US.

Columbia is a de facto MNNA.

On Argentina... well, I guess the US wants to have some clout in the region. Perhaps it has to do with the Falklands issue. The US has some leverage in persuading Argentina to not attack by making it a MNNA. It can say "Well, we won't attack you if you try and take the Falklands, but it is highly unlikely that the American people will simply support the relationship continuing as is in the event of an attack"

In that case, I think it is a brilliant and very subtle move by the US. Making the Argentinians militarily dependent on US hardware and munitions in effect restrains negative policy choices against a more important ally.

 

[klaidonis]

I would say this is one of the least compelling arguments i have seen. The 'Britishs' 'created' Australia largely as a dumping ground for its problems, Canada and America can hardly to be considered 'created' by the British

The British cleared those lands from aborigines and Indians (or First Nations or Native Americans). They built the first cities, infrastructure, corporations. They introduced advanced agricultural methods. And, the last but not the least, British colonial administrations were the first working governments there.

So, yes, I consider those countries created by Great Britain. That's why they became so attractive to immigrants.

millions of immigrants 'created' Britain.

You mean Saxons, Angles, or Vikings?

 

[Takhisis]

Well, Brazil is a pretty big country, the top power in South America. Why does it need the help and subordination, along with damage to national pride? Plus, it isn't like the US is just giving away help, it expects something in return. Brazil doesn't need the US.

Columbia is a de facto MNNA.

On Argentina... well, I guess the US wants to have some clout in the region. Perhaps it has to do with the Falklands issue. The US has some leverage in persuading Argentina to not attack by making it a MNNA. It can say "Well, we won't attack you if you try and take the Falklands, but it is highly unlikely that the American people will simply support the relationship continuing as is in the event of an attack"

In that case, I think it is a brilliant and very subtle move by the US. Making the Argentinians militarily dependent on US hardware and munitions in effect restrains negative policy choices against a more important ally.

Good reasoning. Last time around the Argentines had a lot of Exocet missiles from France and used them to great effect, even firing them from lorries onshore -sinking one destroyer with one such truck-shot, from what I've heard. I went on board a corvette a few yars ago and those missiles are scary.
But they're obviously overestimating Argentina's military capacity. The UK wouldn't have to mobilise a terribly large proportion of its armed forces to answer the invasion. And Argentina has no WMD. What kind of a threat do other countries really feel it poses? It's ruled by a couple of money-laundering pseudo-leftwings who have actively dismantled the Army out of revenge. Why should the remnants of the Army follow their lead?
btw it's 'Colombia'. Columbia is that territory in Canada

The British cleared those lands from aborigines and Indians (or First Nations or Native Americans). They built the first cities, infrastructure, corporations. They introduced advanced agricultural methods. And, the last but not the least, British colonial administrations were the first working governments there.

So, yes, I consider those countries created by Great Britain. That's why they became so attractive to immigrants.

Hurmm, your post has a bit of racism in it... what may be deducted from your statement is that as the aborigines were exterminated, their culture and religion uprooted and their forms of government and social organisation stamped out; the English (from the 18th century onwards, the British) are so superior and somehow 'deserve' the land better than the natives.

 

[say1988]

Good reasoning. Last time around the Argentines had a lot of Exocet missiles from France and used them to great effect, even firing them from lorries onshore -sinking one destroyer with one such truck-shot, from what I've heard.

Of course, in 1982 the Royal Navy was completely unprepared for the threat of missile attacks. They were seriously lacking air defenses in that no ship had a CIWS, which were subsequently added to most major vessels.

People make a lot about the Sheffield, and yes it does show the power of anti-ship missiles, most people ignore the fact that the British lacked one of the primary counters to such weapons which were just becoming available in the 1980s (both the ones the British adopted, Phalanx and Goalkeeper, were deployed in 1980).

 

[The Imp]

Good reasoning. Last time around the Argentines had a lot of Exocet missiles from France and used them to great effect, even firing them from lorries onshore -sinking one destroyer with one such truck-shot, from what I've heard. I went on board a corvette a few yars ago and those missiles are scary.
But they're obviously overestimating Argentina's military capacity. The UK wouldn't have to mobilise a terribly large proportion of its armed forces to answer the invasion. And Argentina has no WMD. What kind of a threat do other countries really feel it poses? It's ruled by a couple of money-laundering pseudo-leftwings who have actively dismantled the Army out of revenge. Why should the remnants of the Army follow their lead?
btw it's 'Colombia'. Columbia is that territory in Canada

Hurmm, your post has a bit of racism in it... what may be deducted from your statement is that as the aborigines were exterminated, their culture and religion uprooted and their forms of government and social organisation stamped out; the English (from the 18th century onwards, the British) are so superior and somehow 'deserve' the land better than the natives.

Its "British Colombia", not Colombia

Anyway... even a mismatch between Britain and Argentina will still cause a bit of disruption in the world. Better for the US to simply try and prevent such an occurrence, while making a few bucks in the process and perhaps gaining an ally.

Nobody wants a war between two G-20 countries, and the implied economic problems that will result.

 

[SpiritWolf]

The GRMs, because it sounds cooler.

 

[Tee Kay]

Who should own the Falklands? The Chinese of course. Zheng He got there before everyone else.

 

[say1988]

Of course, he also got to the Moon, but had to turn back before arriving on Mars.