The forced movement of a people against their will is a crime against humanity IIRC.
Yet Another Falklands Flare Up
- Thread starter imperialman
- Start date
The forced movement of a people against their will is a crime against humanity IIRC.
Disgustipated
Deity
Maybe, but I still would like to see the people of Israel removed if it would allow for permanent peace in the middle east. Wouldn't the saving of thousands of lives be better than the crime of forcibly removing a population?
rugbyLEAGUEfan
Deity
Disgustipated
Deity
I meant to say Falklands. I have 2 words mixed up in my head.
Unfortunately, ethics doesn't work like that where others are concerned. The rights of the individual are paramount - people have a right not to be forcibly displaced, and that right trumps any good which may be brought about from their displacement. All people are created equal, and endowed by their creator with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The belief that the good of the majority can trump the rights of the minority is at the core of every dictatorial, Stalinist or Fascist regime in history.
No it wouldn't.
Would you like it if a bunch of people decreed that you and your neighbours had to leave Las Vegas because they were going to give it back to the Mexicans?
Disgustipated
Deity
I might consider it if it would save thousands of lives. But currently there is no dispute or violence over the land.
Not yet,
Dont forgot that the Argentinians had the chance in 1850 to get the Falklands once and for all but nooo, they decided to let the issue lie for 100 years.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
What does this have to do with the Falklands? There is no armed dispute over the region and the only diplomatic dispute about them is a farce.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,377
How exactly is Argentina falling apart?
Disgustipated
Deity
Actually nothing to do with the Falklands. I only used my scenario as an example of when such action might be good. It doesn't apply to Falklands since there is no terrorist activity there. But should all their neighbors unite and launch terrorist attacks against the Falklands, then it might be worth considering. Not that I'm suggesting surrendering to terrorism. Okay, I am.
The U.S. should never surrender to terrorism, but weaker nations should consider such an option.
Disgustipated
Deity
Are you implying that in order for one country to take control of territory belonging to another, the best way to do it is by start suicide-bombing the territory?
Oh it's not the best way. But it will eventually work in Israel. You just wait and see. Israel will not be around in 50 years. You do what you have to in order to achieve your objectives. Yes I am saying terrorism is a legitimate form of warfare.
Gen.Mannerheim
Grand Moff
Terrorism is a tool of warfare, a very old one at that. But in and of itself it is not a form.
imperialman
Admiral
They're not English nor are most of them from England.
The majority are descended from Scots and Welsh settlers.
They're a people with a colonial history like that of Argentina (only no natives were displaced), a people who self identify as Falkland Islanders but unlike Argentina they retained links with their settling power. They have as much right as anyone in South America to determine their own status and they wish to remain with the UK providing their defence and foreign affairs.
I'm sure I've heard 'the end justifies the means' before...
King Kalmah
Magyar Madness
Maybe they didn't have the capitol or population to develop the island.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
Does that matter? They had their chance at the islands and relinquished them.
King Kalmah
Magyar Madness
Same could be said of Cuba and countless other places for the USA...
but yet the big boys still need these tiny islands...why?
They hold no strategic advantage to UK...
I mean if they were building nukes then go ahead and invade...
wait for it...Argentina is building nuclear weapons at 10pm on your evening news...lol
EDIT...what if this happened 200 years ago with France and Louisiana and the French citizens living in Louisiana held firm in their claim of the territory and claimed it a sovereign nation ...(Technically they had the numbers and fire power to form their own country if they had a leader/desire to do so/kinda like Texas....)
I know it never happened historically,but saying that because you lack the resources(population) you don't deserve the land is rather odd statement...especially when,all considered, that is how America got the majority of its land through peace treaties rather then by population and colonization.We had the bigger gun at the negotiating table.
Again the real argument here is not population or money,but who wields the bigger gun.So UK will win until Argentina gets a voice in the region....
it happened with Hong Kong in regard to China and it will happen to Argentina in regards to the Falklands by the end of our lifetimes...
imperialman
Admiral
The islands aren't part of the UK, they're only dependent (theough choice) on the UK for foreign affairs and defence.
Also, the situation with Hong Kong isn't comparable given the unique history of Hong Kong (a good chunk of the territory at least) being a 99 year lease.
Also, the situation with Hong Kong isn't comparable given the unique history of Hong Kong (a good chunk of the territory at least) being a 99 year lease.
