Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The Falkland Islands: Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Tell Argentina to STFU

18911131424

Posts

  • WildcatWildcat Registered User regular
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Sargasso wrote: »
    poshniallo wrote: »

    Which Argentinians were replaced by colonisation?

    And using the word Anglo-Saxons rather than British people comes off as pretty racist, by the way.

    The inhabitants before the british claim

    (and since when is anglo saxon a racist word??)

    The islands were devoid of human habitation prior to the british colony. Granted, there was a spanish jail at one point, but it apparently was abandoned 3 months after it was built.
    The inevitable Wiki articles states: 'On 5 January 1833, at the moment when the remaining Argentine military abandoned the islands, 27 of the original Vernet settlers and 2 temporary residents remained in Port Louis. These included 12 gauchos from Argentina and their Capataz (foreman); a Frenchman; 5 Indians from Montevideo, Uruguay; 3 women from mainland South America and their two children. Other nationalities recorded are Irish, Scottish, German, and North American, making up a tiny population of some 7 different nationalities.'

    That ... doesn't exactly sounds like much of a population.

  • poshniallo wrote: »
    Sargasso wrote: »
    poshniallo wrote: »

    Which Argentinians were replaced by colonisation?

    And using the word Anglo-Saxons rather than British people comes off as pretty racist, by the way.

    The inhabitants before the british claim

    (and since when is anglo saxon a racist word??)

    What Argentine inhabitants? And using ethnicity rather than nationality does sound racist, yes.

    The guys who came to the islands after it was abandoned by the spanish. I still don't understand your idea about racism but ok, I won't use that word again if you are unhappy.

    Flame_Shot.gif Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a year. Set him on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life!
  • BogartBogart Registered User regular
    Sargasso wrote: »
    But it's the same situation. The only reason the inhabitants are now british is because the islands were captured and british settlers were sent there. Same thing with Tibet, it was captured and Han Chinese were sent there. They did not even need to have a specific policy, settlers flooding in was just a consequence of the invasion. Tibet is just one example out of many of people getting booted out. So when OP said that argentina was being imperialistic because the local population wants to remain british is a fallacious argument, since the british aren't supposed to be there in the first place. Centuries of colonization don't erase the fact that there was an occupation.

    Bolded part is especially amusing. Do you think the island had a native population of Argentinians? The only reason Argentine people were there is because (after French, Spanish and British settlers) they were sent there in an effort to colonise the place (as a penal colony, in Argentina's case).

    You know, there's a rumour that Argentina might be the result of some kind of colonisation in South America. Probably just a rumour, though. I'm sure that they've been there the whole time and the land shouldn't be returned to the original inhabitants.

  • BogartBogart Registered User regular
    Wildcat wrote: »
    The inevitable Wiki articles states: 'On 5 January 1833, at the moment when the remaining Argentine military abandoned the islands, 27 of the original Vernet settlers and 2 temporary residents remained in Port Louis. These included 12 gauchos from Argentina and their Capataz (foreman); a Frenchman; 5 Indians from Montevideo, Uruguay; 3 women from mainland South America and their two children. Other nationalities recorded are Irish, Scottish, German, and North American, making up a tiny population of some 7 different nationalities.'

    That ... doesn't exactly sounds like much of a population.

    Apparently all you need is a round dozen and you have a native population. It must have been a concerted effort by Britain to outbreed such a mighty host. Exactly analoguous to the situation in Tibet and not a remarkably stupid comparison at all.

  • Venkman90Venkman90 Registered User regular
    *Drops into thread*

    *Makes Sean Penn levels of stupid comments*

    *Gets fact checked into oblivion*

    Now the options are: belligerently defend position ignoring all counter points and facts or disappear from the thread for good.

    I think the second option would be best.

  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    Furthermore, The primary claim from the Argentinians for sovereignty over the islands is proximity, not ancestral heritage.

    The only reason why Argentina even gives a rats ass is because they're looking for a fast buck at the expense of a smaller indigenous population.

    Spoiler:
  • simonwolfsimonwolf i don't care i'd rather sink -- than swipe right for bradRegistered User regular
    Maybe he wasn't arguing for the Argentines to be "given back" the islands, but instead thinking that the British to hand back control to the Falkland's real original inhabitants: penguins.

    Too long have the true penguin sons of the Falklands suffered under the oppressive yoke of the English crown!

    Penguins, unite! You have nothing to lose but your adorable waddling gait!

  • Bogart wrote: »
    Sargasso wrote: »
    But it's the same situation. The only reason the inhabitants are now british is because the islands were captured and british settlers were sent there. Same thing with Tibet, it was captured and Han Chinese were sent there. They did not even need to have a specific policy, settlers flooding in was just a consequence of the invasion. Tibet is just one example out of many of people getting booted out. So when OP said that argentina was being imperialistic because the local population wants to remain british is a fallacious argument, since the british aren't supposed to be there in the first place. Centuries of colonization don't erase the fact that there was an occupation.

    Bolded part is especially amusing. Do you think the island had a native population of Argentinians? The only reason Argentine people were there is because (after French, Spanish and British settlers) they were sent there in an effort to colonise the place (as a penal colony, in Argentina's case).

    You know, there's a rumour that Argentina might be the result of some kind of colonisation in South America. Probably just a rumour, though. I'm sure that they've been there the whole time and the land shouldn't be returned to the original inhabitants.

    It's simple to understand, though, it's just the rule of first comers, first keepers. Technically the spaniards and the french were first but they abandoned the island.

    I don't know why you are trying to troll me on argentina, I am not argentinian myself, I just think the current situation is unfair to them. If you say the whole nation of argentina is illegitimate because some natives were there in the past, then the same can be said of every nation on earth. The english would be illegitimate because they are on celtic land. The celts are illegitimate because they are on neanderthal land. And so on to infinity. Your argument, while seemingly clever and sarcastic, is illogical.

    Flame_Shot.gif Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a year. Set him on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life!
  • Bogart wrote: »
    Wildcat wrote: »
    The inevitable Wiki articles states: 'On 5 January 1833, at the moment when the remaining Argentine military abandoned the islands, 27 of the original Vernet settlers and 2 temporary residents remained in Port Louis. These included 12 gauchos from Argentina and their Capataz (foreman); a Frenchman; 5 Indians from Montevideo, Uruguay; 3 women from mainland South America and their two children. Other nationalities recorded are Irish, Scottish, German, and North American, making up a tiny population of some 7 different nationalities.'

    That ... doesn't exactly sounds like much of a population.

    Apparently all you need is a round dozen and you have a native population. It must have been a concerted effort by Britain to outbreed such a mighty host. Exactly analoguous to the situation in Tibet and not a remarkably stupid comparison at all.

    I guess when westerners take land it's always justified and a great thing for the locals. But when others do that it's an invasion. Thanks for clarifying.

    Flame_Shot.gif Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a year. Set him on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life!
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    Sargasso wrote: »
    It's simple to understand, though, it's just the rule of first comers, first keepers. Technically the spaniards and the french were first but they abandoned the island.
    Bold italic for the important part, and why argentina has no claim.
    I don't know why you are trying to troll me on argentina, I am not argentinian myself, I just think the current situation is unfair to them. If you say the whole nation of argentina is illegitimate because some natives were there in the past, then the same can be said of every nation on earth. The english would be illegitimate because they are on celtic land. The celts are illegitimate because they are on neanderthal land. And so on to infinity. Your argument, while seemingly clever and sarcastic, is illogical.
    Because that is the claim you were trying to make?

    Spoiler:
  • simonwolf wrote: »
    Maybe he wasn't arguing for the Argentines to be "given back" the islands, but instead thinking that the British to hand back control to the Falkland's real original inhabitants: penguins.

    Too long have the true penguin sons of the Falklands suffered under the oppressive yoke of the English crown!

    Penguins, unite! You have nothing to lose but your adorable waddling gait!

    All jokes aside, transforming the island into a natural reserve would actually be the fairest solution for both countries and would resolve the issue immediately.

    Flame_Shot.gif Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a year. Set him on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life!
  • BogartBogart Registered User regular
    Sargasso wrote: »
    It's simple to understand, though, it's just the rule of first comers, first keepers. Technically the spaniards and the french were first but they abandoned the island.

    I don't know why you are trying to troll me on argentina, I am not argentinian myself, I just think the current situation is unfair to them. If you say the whole nation of argentina is illegitimate because some natives were there in the past, then the same can be said of every nation on earth. The english would be illegitimate because they are on celtic land. The celts are illegitimate because they are on neanderthal land. And so on to infinity. Your argument, while seemingly clever and sarcastic, is illogical.

    Except it isn't my argument. It's yours. According to you a dozen guys from Argentina (and more from other countries) left behind when the Argentine penal colony was abandoned constitute the rightful owners of the island. If that's true, then the rightful owners of Argentina (and yes, pretty much every other country) aren't the guys there now. Why is the Falklands a special case for you? Why give that 'back' but no other land?

    Besides, if it's first come, first served then Britain never left. We staked a claim there before Argentina was even a country.

    And seriously, if you can't see the difference between what's happening right now in Tibet and Britain claiming the islands after all but 12 Argentines leave two hundred years ago then I don't know what to say to you.

  • Gaddez wrote: »
    Furthermore, The primary claim from the Argentinians for sovereignty over the islands is proximity, not ancestral heritage.

    The only reason why Argentina even gives a rats ass is because they're looking for a fast buck at the expense of a smaller indigenous population.

    Oh yeah because when the english invaded a small island thousands of kilometers from their own it was for the benefit of the locals, and totally not for profit. True story.

    Flame_Shot.gif Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a year. Set him on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life!
  • RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    Sargasso wrote: »
    simonwolf wrote: »
    Maybe he wasn't arguing for the Argentines to be "given back" the islands, but instead thinking that the British to hand back control to the Falkland's real original inhabitants: penguins.

    Too long have the true penguin sons of the Falklands suffered under the oppressive yoke of the English crown!

    Penguins, unite! You have nothing to lose but your adorable waddling gait!

    All jokes aside, transforming the island into a natural reserve would actually be the fairest solution for both countries and would resolve the issue immediately.

    So when two sides have a dispute over territory, neither should get it?

  • Gaddez wrote: »
    Sargasso wrote: »
    It's simple to understand, though, it's just the rule of first comers, first keepers. Technically the spaniards and the french were first but they abandoned the island.
    Bold italic for the important part, and why argentina has no claim.
    I don't know why you are trying to troll me on argentina, I am not argentinian myself, I just think the current situation is unfair to them. If you say the whole nation of argentina is illegitimate because some natives were there in the past, then the same can be said of every nation on earth. The english would be illegitimate because they are on celtic land. The celts are illegitimate because they are on neanderthal land. And so on to infinity. Your argument, while seemingly clever and sarcastic, is illogical.
    Because that is the claim you were trying to make?

    So taking abandoned land is the same as invading owned land?

    and here it's different, the first settlers were the first to arrive. The malvinas were uninhabited since they are an isolated island.

    Flame_Shot.gif Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a year. Set him on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life!
  • WildcatWildcat Registered User regular
    Sargasso wrote: »
    simonwolf wrote: »
    Maybe he wasn't arguing for the Argentines to be "given back" the islands, but instead thinking that the British to hand back control to the Falkland's real original inhabitants: penguins.

    Too long have the true penguin sons of the Falklands suffered under the oppressive yoke of the English crown!

    Penguins, unite! You have nothing to lose but your adorable waddling gait!

    All jokes aside, transforming the island into a natural reserve would actually be the fairest solution for both countries and would resolve the issue immediately.

    So when two sides have a dispute over territory, neither should get it?
    If you can't share your toys then we're taking them away from you both.

    The offshore oil, not so much.

  • RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    Wildcat wrote: »
    Sargasso wrote: »
    simonwolf wrote: »
    Maybe he wasn't arguing for the Argentines to be "given back" the islands, but instead thinking that the British to hand back control to the Falkland's real original inhabitants: penguins.

    Too long have the true penguin sons of the Falklands suffered under the oppressive yoke of the English crown!

    Penguins, unite! You have nothing to lose but your adorable waddling gait!

    All jokes aside, transforming the island into a natural reserve would actually be the fairest solution for both countries and would resolve the issue immediately.

    So when two sides have a dispute over territory, neither should get it?
    If you can't share your toys then we're taking them away from you both.

    The offshore oil, not so much.

    As someone who lives in Disputed Territory, albeit Territory that's sort of internally disputed if that makes sense, I'd rather this not be the standard solution.

  • WildcatWildcat Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    Sargasso wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Sargasso wrote: »
    It's simple to understand, though, it's just the rule of first comers, first keepers. Technically the spaniards and the french were first but they abandoned the island.
    Bold italic for the important part, and why argentina has no claim.
    I don't know why you are trying to troll me on argentina, I am not argentinian myself, I just think the current situation is unfair to them. If you say the whole nation of argentina is illegitimate because some natives were there in the past, then the same can be said of every nation on earth. The english would be illegitimate because they are on celtic land. The celts are illegitimate because they are on neanderthal land. And so on to infinity. Your argument, while seemingly clever and sarcastic, is illogical.
    Because that is the claim you were trying to make?

    So taking abandoned land is the same as invading owned land?

    and here it's different, the first settlers were the first to arrive. The malvinas were uninhabited since they are an isolated island.
    Well, technically the Dutch were there first. Anyone want to ask Den Haag if they want them back?
    Wildcat wrote: »
    Sargasso wrote: »
    simonwolf wrote: »
    Maybe he wasn't arguing for the Argentines to be "given back" the islands, but instead thinking that the British to hand back control to the Falkland's real original inhabitants: penguins.

    Too long have the true penguin sons of the Falklands suffered under the oppressive yoke of the English crown!

    Penguins, unite! You have nothing to lose but your adorable waddling gait!

    All jokes aside, transforming the island into a natural reserve would actually be the fairest solution for both countries and would resolve the issue immediately.

    So when two sides have a dispute over territory, neither should get it?
    If you can't share your toys then we're taking them away from you both.

    The offshore oil, not so much.

    As someone who lives in Disputed Territory, albeit Territory that's sort of internally disputed if that makes sense, I'd rather this not be the standard solution.
    Hey, me too!

    Wildcat on
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    Sargasso wrote: »
    simonwolf wrote: »
    Maybe he wasn't arguing for the Argentines to be "given back" the islands, but instead thinking that the British to hand back control to the Falkland's real original inhabitants: penguins.

    Too long have the true penguin sons of the Falklands suffered under the oppressive yoke of the English crown!

    Penguins, unite! You have nothing to lose but your adorable waddling gait!

    All jokes aside, transforming the island into a natural reserve would actually be the fairest solution for both countries and would resolve the issue immediately.

    So rather then have Argentinians feel bad about not getting control over a large oil deposit, you posit that it would be better to deport some 3000 individuals who have lived there their entire lives so that the island can be a nature preserve?

    .
    ..
    ...

    What makes you think the Argentinians won't simply move right in and drill like crazy?

    Like, I'm getting the impression that you desperately need to read the better part of this thread before commenting sargasso.

    Spoiler:
  • BogartBogart Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    How is it the fairest solution? Fair to whom? Certainly not to the entire population of the islands, who want to remain British. Or do the three thousand inhabitants of the island not matter as much as the dozen Argentine guys left behind when the penal colony was abandoned two hundred years ago?

    I get the distinct impression that you thought that there was a thriving Argentine colony there before a cruel invasion by Britain or something. You were wrong. How are you dealing with this new information? Are you accepting it and modifying your views, or are you ignoring it and pressing on regardless? Also, you bought up first come, first served, and since Britain laid a claim on the islands before any Argentine settlement was placed there, does this information change your mind at all?

    Bogart on
  • RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    Wildcat wrote: »
    As someone who lives in Disputed Territory, albeit Territory that's sort of internally disputed if that makes sense, I'd rather this not be the standard solution.
    Hey, me too!

    Ooh, who disputes you?

  • WildcatWildcat Registered User regular
    Wildcat wrote: »
    As someone who lives in Disputed Territory, albeit Territory that's sort of internally disputed if that makes sense, I'd rather this not be the standard solution.
    Hey, me too!

    Ooh, who disputes you?
    We kinda dispute each other. But we're all technically friends now.

  • BobCescaBobCesca Registered User regular
    There wasn't even a unified independent Argentina 'till like the 1860s or something, IIRC (though I think the initial declaration of independence for at least part of the country was nearer the beginning of the 1800s), and the Brits kinda claimed the Falklands around the 1830s? I think the Argentines were a bit busy fighting a civil war to be going around claiming pointless islands...

  • Bogart wrote: »
    Sargasso wrote: »
    It's simple to understand, though, it's just the rule of first comers, first keepers. Technically the spaniards and the french were first but they abandoned the island.

    I don't know why you are trying to troll me on argentina, I am not argentinian myself, I just think the current situation is unfair to them. If you say the whole nation of argentina is illegitimate because some natives were there in the past, then the same can be said of every nation on earth. The english would be illegitimate because they are on celtic land. The celts are illegitimate because they are on neanderthal land. And so on to infinity. Your argument, while seemingly clever and sarcastic, is illogical.

    Except it isn't my argument. It's yours. According to you a dozen guys from Argentina (and more from other countries) left behind when the Argentine penal colony was abandoned constitute the rightful owners of the island. If that's true, then the rightful owners of Argentina (and yes, pretty much every other country) aren't the guys there now. Why is the Falklands a special case for you? Why give that 'back' but no other land?

    Besides, if it's first come, first served then Britain never left. We staked a claim there before Argentina was even a country.

    And seriously, if you can't see the difference between what's happening right now in Tibet and Britain claiming the islands after all but 12 Argentines leave two hundred years ago then I don't know what to say to you.

    But the malvinas were uninhabitated before the europeans who would later call themselves the argentinians arrived. That is why the situation is particular. If there were natives from long ago I would never even have brought this issue up, since as you pointed out my whole premise would have been flawed.

    As for the whole Tibet thing, I do realize the facts are different but the underlying illegitimacy is the same. The difference is one of scale, not one of premise.

    To be honest, all of this probably won't matter in the long run but I'm just tired of seeing southerners get bullied into submission. I didn't mean to lash out like that, but you can't get heard otherwise.

    Flame_Shot.gif Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a year. Set him on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life!
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    So taking abandoned land is the same as invading owned land?
    No, it isn't, and that's the point that we've been trying to make.

    Spoiler:
  • Wildcat wrote: »
    Sargasso wrote: »
    simonwolf wrote: »
    Maybe he wasn't arguing for the Argentines to be "given back" the islands, but instead thinking that the British to hand back control to the Falkland's real original inhabitants: penguins.

    Too long have the true penguin sons of the Falklands suffered under the oppressive yoke of the English crown!

    Penguins, unite! You have nothing to lose but your adorable waddling gait!

    All jokes aside, transforming the island into a natural reserve would actually be the fairest solution for both countries and would resolve the issue immediately.

    So when two sides have a dispute over territory, neither should get it?
    If you can't share your toys then we're taking them away from you both.

    The offshore oil, not so much.

    I am more sympathetic to the penguin's cause than to either the argies or the brits. So by all means let them have the island and the oil.

    Flame_Shot.gif Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a year. Set him on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life!
  • RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    Wildcat wrote: »
    Wildcat wrote: »
    As someone who lives in Disputed Territory, albeit Territory that's sort of internally disputed if that makes sense, I'd rather this not be the standard solution.
    Hey, me too!

    Ooh, who disputes you?
    We kinda dispute each other. But we're all technically friends now.

    And what part of the world is this technical friendship taking place?[/Killed Cat]

  • BogartBogart Registered User regular
    How on Earth do you see this situation as 'southerners getting bullied into submission'? Argentine claims on the island rest on a dozen guys two hundred years ago who didn't leave with the rest of the colony. And those guys got there after Britain staked a claim on the place (and France, and Spain, etc).

    They only people being bullied are the Falkland Islanders themselves, who are having transport links to the mainlad cut by Argentina to apply pressure on them. Sounds sorta like bullying to me.

  • adytumadytum Registered User regular
    Sargasso wrote: »
    As for the whole Tibet thing, I do realize the facts are different but the underlying illegitimacy is the same. The difference is one of scale, not one of premise.

    Mmnope, it's a difference of premise too!

    etxvv5.jpg
  • The Fourth EstateThe Fourth Estate Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    Sargasso wrote: »
    Bogart wrote: »
    Sargasso wrote: »
    It's simple to understand, though, it's just the rule of first comers, first keepers. Technically the spaniards and the french were first but they abandoned the island.

    I don't know why you are trying to troll me on argentina, I am not argentinian myself, I just think the current situation is unfair to them. If you say the whole nation of argentina is illegitimate because some natives were there in the past, then the same can be said of every nation on earth. The english would be illegitimate because they are on celtic land. The celts are illegitimate because they are on neanderthal land. And so on to infinity. Your argument, while seemingly clever and sarcastic, is illogical.

    Except it isn't my argument. It's yours. According to you a dozen guys from Argentina (and more from other countries) left behind when the Argentine penal colony was abandoned constitute the rightful owners of the island. If that's true, then the rightful owners of Argentina (and yes, pretty much every other country) aren't the guys there now. Why is the Falklands a special case for you? Why give that 'back' but no other land?

    Besides, if it's first come, first served then Britain never left. We staked a claim there before Argentina was even a country.

    And seriously, if you can't see the difference between what's happening right now in Tibet and Britain claiming the islands after all but 12 Argentines leave two hundred years ago then I don't know what to say to you.

    But the malvinas were uninhabitated before the europeans who would later call themselves the argentinians arrived. That is why the situation is particular. If there were natives from long ago I would never even have brought this issue up, since as you pointed out my whole premise would have been flawed.

    As for the whole Tibet thing, I do realize the facts are different but the underlying illegitimacy is the same. The difference is one of scale, not one of premise.

    To be honest, all of this probably won't matter in the long run but I'm just tired of seeing southerners get bullied into submission. I didn't mean to lash out like that, but you can't get heard otherwise.

    You should probably look at some 1940s census data for Konigsberg and Wroclaw before making pronouncements about Tibet. Even if we had ousted a thriving Argentine community (which we didn't just in case someone misinterprets this) and resettled with British people, the Falklands would be way down the list of territory transfers that would need to take place under your principle.

    The Fourth Estate on
    steam_sig.png
  • BogartBogart Registered User regular
    Again, do you seriously want people to accept that a dozen guys on a barren rock in the middle of the Atlantic is the same as an entire country like Tibet getting invaded and having its culture systematically dismantled? Your comparison amply demonstrates the thundering lack of understanding of the situation.

    Hell, why not say the British are the Nazis, and those dozen guys were like Czechkoslovakia?

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    Why does the international community think that it's perfectly acceptable for Argentina to cock about but completely ignores the shit they're pulling and shifting all the blame onto the UK?

    The_Sun_%28Gotcha%29.png

    1) The decision made by the UK to protect the Falklands are not something a serious person can dispute, but some (a lot) of the actions taken within that conflict were bullshit, and Thatcher's government made matters worse by applauding them. Ambushing and sinking a ship, murdering 300 conscripted Argentinians, just to show the dictator you mean business, is maybe the best example.

    2) Argentina is very poor and very run down for a country of it's size. What little wealth that hasn't been tapped by a variety of multinational organizations has been stolen by the government, leaving the public with decaying infrastructure and brutal police forces (they used to openly engage in 'disappearing' people; apparently this has stopped, and we're supposed to be impressed that law enforcement officials are no longer paid to kidnap & murder dissidents).

    Obviously that's not any reason to support the actions of Agentina, but it's why a lot of people sympathize with that country instead of the wealthy & monolithic UK.

    TOG Solid wrote:
    If that guy wasn't white he would have gotten popped by so many tasers simultaneously that Marvel could use that as the new origin for Electro.
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    Sargasso wrote: »
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Sargasso wrote: »
    It's simple to understand, though, it's just the rule of first comers, first keepers. Technically the spaniards and the french were first but they abandoned the island.
    Bold italic for the important part, and why argentina has no claim.
    I don't know why you are trying to troll me on argentina, I am not argentinian myself, I just think the current situation is unfair to them. If you say the whole nation of argentina is illegitimate because some natives were there in the past, then the same can be said of every nation on earth. The english would be illegitimate because they are on celtic land. The celts are illegitimate because they are on neanderthal land. And so on to infinity. Your argument, while seemingly clever and sarcastic, is illogical.
    Because that is the claim you were trying to make?

    So taking abandoned land is the same as invading owned land?

    and here it's different, the first settlers were the first to arrive. The malvinas were uninhabited since they are an isolated island.

    Argentina never owned them. Under the rule of first there keeps it, you can make a claim for Spanish, French, or British sovereignty.

    However we don't do such things because by that silly reasoning every country in the Americas is illegitimate. Instead, we rely on 200 years of continued British presence and sovereignty to assert: yeah, that's theirs. Just like we say: Argentina has been sitting in that spot in South America for 200 years now, so that place is theirs. Instead of claiming that it somehow belongs to the indigenous population (i.e. whoever came before the Inca).

  • adytumadytum Registered User regular
    enc0re wrote: »
    However we don't do such things because by that silly reasoning every country in the Americas is illegitimate. Instead, we rely on 200 years of continued British presence and sovereignty to assert: yeah, that's theirs. Just like we say: Argentina has been sitting in that spot in South America for 200 years now, so that place is theirs. Instead of claiming that it somehow belongs to the indigenous population (i.e. whoever came before the Inca).

    Well, the Spanish murdered all of the indigenous peoples of the region, so there's no original claim to it anymore..

    etxvv5.jpg
  • BogartBogart Registered User regular
    Aside from sinking the Belgrano, what other British actions during the war were strikingly awful?

    And, gobsmackingly awful Sun headline aside, even that isn't the absolutely unforgivable action you make it out to be.

  • WildcatWildcat Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    Wildcat wrote: »
    Wildcat wrote: »
    As someone who lives in Disputed Territory, albeit Territory that's sort of internally disputed if that makes sense, I'd rather this not be the standard solution.
    Hey, me too!

    Ooh, who disputes you?
    We kinda dispute each other. But we're all technically friends now.

    And what part of the world is this technical friendship taking place?[/Killed Cat]
    That bit up at the top of where all the Guinness comes from.

    The Ender wrote: »
    1) The decision made by the UK to protect the Falklands are not something a serious person can dispute, but some (a lot) of the actions taken within that conflict were bullshit, and Thatcher's government made matters worse by applauding them. Ambushing and sinking a ship, murdering 300 conscripted Argentinians, just to show the dictator you mean business, is maybe the best example.
    I was under the impression that the Argentine authorities and the captain of the General Belgrano both conceded that the sinking was a legitimate wartime action?

    Wildcat on
  • Bogart wrote: »
    Again, do you seriously want people to accept that a dozen guys on a barren rock in the middle of the Atlantic is the same as an entire country like Tibet getting invaded and having its culture systematically dismantled? Your comparison amply demonstrates the thundering lack of understanding of the situation.

    Hell, why not say the British are the Nazis, and those dozen guys were like Czechkoslovakia?

    Like I said, it's a difference of scale. The theft of land and the destruction of culture was common in those days, and just because it concerns less people in the argentinian case doesn't make it any less wrong than say, the french in maghreb or the british in india.

    Flame_Shot.gif Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a year. Set him on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life!
  • adytumadytum Registered User regular
    edited March 2012
    It wasn't a difference of scale. There was no theft of land or destruction of culture. Period, the end.

    adytum on
    etxvv5.jpg
  • ElldrenElldren 3067-6294-6208Registered User regular
    Sargasso wrote: »
    Bogart wrote: »
    Again, do you seriously want people to accept that a dozen guys on a barren rock in the middle of the Atlantic is the same as an entire country like Tibet getting invaded and having its culture systematically dismantled? Your comparison amply demonstrates the thundering lack of understanding of the situation.

    Hell, why not say the British are the Nazis, and those dozen guys were like Czechkoslovakia?

    Like I said, it's a difference of scale. The theft of land and the destruction of culture was common in those days, and just because it concerns less people in the argentinian case doesn't make it any less wrong than say, the french in maghreb or the british in india.

    These are completely different things

    completely and utterly

  • In all honesty, I regret expressing my opinion at all. I should have known better than to formulate unbiased conclusions on an anglo-centic website. Winners write history, I guess.

    Flame_Shot.gif Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a year. Set him on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life!
Sign In or Register to comment.