Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
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

2456724

Posts

  • OakeyOakey UKRegistered User regular
    Internets wrote:
    The Kingdom of Hawaii was sovereign from 1810 until 1893 when the monarchy was overthrown by resident American (and some European) businessmen. It was an independent republic from 1894 until 1898, when it was annexed by the United States as a territory, becoming a state in 1959.[34]


    Hmmm.

    steam_sig.png
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Oakey wrote:
    Internets wrote:
    The Kingdom of Hawaii was sovereign from 1810 until 1893 when the monarchy was overthrown by resident American (and some European) businessmen. It was an independent republic from 1894 until 1898, when it was annexed by the United States as a territory, becoming a state in 1959.[34]


    Hmmm.

    Give Hawaii back to Argentina?

    The better example would be Russia deciding it wanted the oil in ANWR and so demanding we give Alaska back.

    Also also, the UK took the Falklands from Spain, not Argentina.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    Can we give Israel to Argentina?

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Can we give Israel to Argentina?

    No oil, they won't want it.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • OakeyOakey UKRegistered User regular
    Or give Hawaii back to the indiginous (sp?) population? Or, or, maybe they might want to remain a US state?

    steam_sig.png
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Oakey wrote:
    Or give Hawaii back to the indiginous (sp?) population? Or, or, maybe they might want to remain a US state?

    Indigenous.

    And, ta-dah! You win the internet.

    But who cares what the people who live in a place think, it's all about Sean Penn, amirite?

    Lh96QHG.png
  • OakeyOakey UKRegistered User regular
    I knew there was an 'e' in there somewhere.

    steam_sig.png
  • KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    Kirchner just handily won re-election too, iirc, so she is hardly just doing this for personal electoral gain

    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Indeed, she's doing it for oil.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • rockrngerrockrnger Registered User regular
    rockrnger wrote:
    Bagginses wrote:
    adytum wrote:
    And amusingly, the original war was started partly to divert attention from Argentina's floundering military regime's economic crisis.

    Today, the increasingly autocratic Argentinian government is facing severe internal economic turmoil.

    Hmm...

    I saw this piece of mental greatness on tumblr:

    tumblr_lze3fz00KB1r7ju92o1_500.png

    What's wrong with people? Why does such a large part of the population just not pay attention to facts?

    The UK didn't start this, at all.

    In the same way that the US didn't start tensions with Iran and Israel didn't start tensions with damn near everybody.

    You're right, those damn Brits, electing Cristina Kirchner and then having her start banging the drums. Will Blighty never learn?


    Oh right, that's bullshit. Britain isn't encroaching on Argentinian interests, it's quite the other way around.

    Thatcher has been pretty open about using the war for political gains.

    But she didn't cause Argentina to invade the Falklands. Can you blame her for using a war for political gain?

    .

    I was just pointing out that she used the war for political gains (interview in "Commanding Heights") so the add in question isn't stupid.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    rockrnger wrote:
    rockrnger wrote:
    Bagginses wrote:
    adytum wrote:
    And amusingly, the original war was started partly to divert attention from Argentina's floundering military regime's economic crisis.

    Today, the increasingly autocratic Argentinian government is facing severe internal economic turmoil.

    Hmm...

    I saw this piece of mental greatness on tumblr:

    tumblr_lze3fz00KB1r7ju92o1_500.png

    What's wrong with people? Why does such a large part of the population just not pay attention to facts?

    The UK didn't start this, at all.

    In the same way that the US didn't start tensions with Iran and Israel didn't start tensions with damn near everybody.

    You're right, those damn Brits, electing Cristina Kirchner and then having her start banging the drums. Will Blighty never learn?


    Oh right, that's bullshit. Britain isn't encroaching on Argentinian interests, it's quite the other way around.

    Thatcher has been pretty open about using the war for political gains.

    But she didn't cause Argentina to invade the Falklands. Can you blame her for using a war for political gain?

    .

    I was just pointing out that she used the war for political gains (interview in "Commanding Heights") so the add in question isn't stupid.

    Well fair enough, but governments always use events for political gain so I don't see that as a problem and IRL Thatcher didn't goad Argentina into invading the Falklands.

    This isn't the British PM going on national TV and saying Buenos Aires is this close to invading, it was Argentina invading and the Brits defending their citizens. To the victor go the spoils.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    Oakey wrote:
    Or give Hawaii back to the indiginous (sp?) population? Or, or, maybe they might want to remain a US state?

    Indigenous.

    And, ta-dah! You win the internet.

    But who cares what the people who live in a place think, it's all about Sean Penn, amirite?

    He runs the liberals don't you know, I heard it on O'reilly

    or is it george soros now

  • Dis'Dis' Registered User regular
    Bagginses wrote:
    Mill wrote:
    Yeah, if the Falklanders are fine being British citizens than Argentina can go right the fuck off.

    Eh, Britain has a history of pulling shit like this. Ulster was districted so that there would be a reliable bare majority to keep the area in is clutches.

    No? Westminster really wanted the entirety of Ireland to fuck right off but recognized that the Ulster Protestants really wanted to stay part of Britain, and would fight any catholic Dublin state (and that would have made the Troubles look like a cakewalk), so they included the protestant areas in the north east, and then added enough of the surrounding land so that the resulting geographical unit would produce enough food and water to survive if cut off, and Belfast wouldn't be hostage to Southern Ireland. Its a decision you can disagree with, but the intent was not a land grab for lands sake.

    And so fucking what if chicanery generated this situation? The Falklands have been British longer than New Mexico and the other Southwest states have been American, and the British just moved somewhere empty rather than brutally conquering the existing land.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Oakey wrote:
    Or give Hawaii back to the indiginous (sp?) population? Or, or, maybe they might want to remain a US state?

    Indigenous.

    And, ta-dah! You win the internet.

    But who cares what the people who live in a place think, it's all about Sean Penn, amirite?

    He runs the liberals don't you know, I heard it on O'reilly

    or is it george soros now

    I only bring him up because of this goosery:

    Lh96QHG.png
  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    rockrnger wrote:
    Bagginses wrote:
    adytum wrote:
    And amusingly, the original war was started partly to divert attention from Argentina's floundering military regime's economic crisis.

    Today, the increasingly autocratic Argentinian government is facing severe internal economic turmoil.

    Hmm...

    I saw this piece of mental greatness on tumblr:

    tumblr_lze3fz00KB1r7ju92o1_500.png

    What's wrong with people? Why does such a large part of the population just not pay attention to facts?

    The UK didn't start this, at all.

    In the same way that the US didn't start tensions with Iran and Israel didn't start tensions with damn near everybody.

    You're right, those damn Brits, electing Cristina Kirchner and then having her start banging the drums. Will Blighty never learn?


    Oh right, that's bullshit. Britain isn't encroaching on Argentinian interests, it's quite the other way around.

    Thatcher has been pretty open about using the war for political gains.

    But she didn't cause Argentina to invade the Falklands. Can you blame her for using a war for political gain?

    Argentina invaded the Falklands, Britain was well within its rights to defend itself. Are we really supposed to be surprised that the politician used the event politically?

    I guess Obama shouldn't mention that he killed OBL or saved Detroit during the campaign or it negates the actions he took in the first place.

    It's fairly ignorant to claim that the UK has blame in this instance in the same way that Israel or the US are culpable in middle east politics.

    She escalated the tension to keep the matter in the news and appear tough on latinos. While Argentina initiated the attack, Thatcher was encouraging them to do so. Similarly, Camaron is pretending that Argentina is capable of capturing the islands and will take Scotland if he tries to decrease tensions with diplomacy.
    Mill wrote:
    Bagginses wrote:
    Mill wrote:
    Yeah, if the Falklanders are fine being British citizens than Argentina can go right the fuck off.

    Eh, Britain has a history of pulling shit like this. Ulster was districted so that there would be a reliable bare majority to keep the area in is clutches.

    I'm no expert on the Falklands but from what I understand there just really isn't an appreciable chunk of the population on them that wants to be Argentinian. I'm pretty sure that if you can get X% of the population to want to join you, you don't have a valid claim as far as most other countries are concerned. I'd argue that most countries would side with Britain because legitimizing Argentina's claim would open a can of worms best left closed.

    Ulster =/= Falklands

    Ireland had a thriving indigenous population, the Falklands had some penguins.

    How does that difference address my point. "Yes, I know all the test vehicles burst into flame, but they were tan. The sale models are painted blue."

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Bagginses wrote:
    rockrnger wrote:
    Bagginses wrote:
    adytum wrote:
    And amusingly, the original war was started partly to divert attention from Argentina's floundering military regime's economic crisis.

    Today, the increasingly autocratic Argentinian government is facing severe internal economic turmoil.

    Hmm...

    I saw this piece of mental greatness on tumblr:

    tumblr_lze3fz00KB1r7ju92o1_500.png

    What's wrong with people? Why does such a large part of the population just not pay attention to facts?

    The UK didn't start this, at all.

    In the same way that the US didn't start tensions with Iran and Israel didn't start tensions with damn near everybody.

    You're right, those damn Brits, electing Cristina Kirchner and then having her start banging the drums. Will Blighty never learn?


    Oh right, that's bullshit. Britain isn't encroaching on Argentinian interests, it's quite the other way around.

    Thatcher has been pretty open about using the war for political gains.

    But she didn't cause Argentina to invade the Falklands. Can you blame her for using a war for political gain?

    Argentina invaded the Falklands, Britain was well within its rights to defend itself. Are we really supposed to be surprised that the politician used the event politically?

    I guess Obama shouldn't mention that he killed OBL or saved Detroit during the campaign or it negates the actions he took in the first place.

    It's fairly ignorant to claim that the UK has blame in this instance in the same way that Israel or the US are culpable in middle east politics.

    She escalated the tension to keep the matter in the news and appear tough on latinos. While Argentina initiated the attack, Thatcher was encouraging them to do so. Similarly, Camaron is pretending that Argentina is capable of capturing the islands and will take Scotland if he tries to decrease tensions with diplomacy.
    Mill wrote:
    Bagginses wrote:
    Mill wrote:
    Yeah, if the Falklanders are fine being British citizens than Argentina can go right the fuck off.

    Eh, Britain has a history of pulling shit like this. Ulster was districted so that there would be a reliable bare majority to keep the area in is clutches.

    I'm no expert on the Falklands but from what I understand there just really isn't an appreciable chunk of the population on them that wants to be Argentinian. I'm pretty sure that if you can get X% of the population to want to join you, you don't have a valid claim as far as most other countries are concerned. I'd argue that most countries would side with Britain because legitimizing Argentina's claim would open a can of worms best left closed.

    Ulster =/= Falklands

    Ireland had a thriving indigenous population, the Falklands had some penguins.

    How does that difference address my point. "Yes, I know all the test vehicles burst into flame, but they were tan. The sale models are painted blue."

    lolwut?

    Ireland is an entirely different beast with no real parallels.

    The Falklands are British. Have been since the early 1800s. No one lived there before them, they were empty rocks that Spain had abandoned. Argentina as zero claim on them.

    Ireland is a totally different beast. There's no native population of malvinans who are being kept from the ballot box or kept from having an opinion. The fascist dictator of Argentina invaded the Falklands without cause. The "instigating" that the UK did was giving their citizens full citizenship.

    Stop being a goose, Argentina doesn't have a leg to stand on here. Argentina just wants the oil that was found.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    Think of the Faulkland Islands like the North Pole/Arctic.

    If another country sets up shop (1833) and is not contested for 150 years (1980) then you sorta lose out on any claim to having dominion/territorial control over the area.

    Its the same reason that in the last 10 years a bunch of countries have hurriedly planted flags on the ocean floor in the arctic.

    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
  • OakeyOakey UKRegistered User regular
    Think of the Faulkland Islands like the North Pole/Arctic.

    If another country sets up shop (1833) and is not contested for 150 years (1980) then you sorta lose out on any claim to having dominion/territorial control over the area.

    Its the same reason that in the last 10 years a bunch of countries have hurriedly planted flags on the ocean floor in the arctic.

    Argentina wasn't even unified until 1862!

    steam_sig.png
  • CptKemzikCptKemzik Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    Oakey wrote:
    Or give Hawaii back to the indiginous (sp?) population? Or, or, maybe they might want to remain a US state?

    Indigenous.

    And, ta-dah! You win the internet.

    But who cares what the people who live in a place think, it's all about Sean Penn, amirite?

    He runs the liberals don't you know, I heard it on O'reilly

    or is it george soros now

    I only bring him up because of this goosery:


    It's as if Jeff Spicoli registered for a History of Global Politics class at college, but then only showed up for one lecture per month.

    CptKemzik on
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Oakey wrote:
    Think of the Faulkland Islands like the North Pole/Arctic.

    If another country sets up shop (1833) and is not contested for 150 years (1980) then you sorta lose out on any claim to having dominion/territorial control over the area.

    Its the same reason that in the last 10 years a bunch of countries have hurriedly planted flags on the ocean floor in the arctic.

    Argentina wasn't even unified until 1862!

    This is an important point. If Britain stole the Falklands from anyone, it was from the Spanish.

    The Spanish had no presence on either island. Argentina has cero standing.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    Thatcher using the Falklands War for political gain doesn't mean the junta were OK either.

    I am comfortable with thinking of both of them as evil, but Thatcher as being less evil. She was lying to her opponents, they were executing theirs.

    Also, Bagginses hates the British most out of all the dirty foreigners that he hates, so some vitriol is to be expected there.

    I figure I could take a bear.
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    poshniallo wrote:
    Thatcher using the Falklands War for political gain doesn't mean the junta were OK either.

    I am comfortable with thinking of both of them as evil, but Thatcher as being less evil. She was lying to her opponents, they were executing theirs.

    Also, Bagginses hates the British most out of all the dirty foreigners that he hates, so some vitriol is to be expected there.

    Aw, now how can you hate the British? They gave us Stephen Fry and English linguistic hegemony.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    Am I the only one that actually has some sympathy for the Argentinean claim here?

    The Falkland Islands are very obviously within their sphere of influence. The UK has to send an aircraft carrier there to defend them, whereas the Argentinean military would be right there to defend them naturally. It would also make trade a lot easier, rather than having to make international imports for stuff that's right next door.

    Of course the people that live there are British- that's because the Brits had the firepower to keep the place all to themselves for 200 years. If Argentina had more firepower back in 1833 then those islands would be filled with Argentineans speaking Spanish. If we try to justify colonialism on the basis that it happened long in the past, then that just encourages nations to hold on to their colonies for a long time until they're forgiven for their crimes.

    What about a compromise? Argentina could make a deal with the UK where Argentina took over nominal ownership of the islands, with the promise that the Falklanders currently living there could continue to govern themselves as they wish without any interference from Argentina. Sort of like the Suez Canal I guess.

    Pi-r8 on
  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    poshniallo wrote:
    Thatcher using the Falklands War for political gain doesn't mean the junta were OK either.

    I am comfortable with thinking of both of them as evil, but Thatcher as being less evil. She was lying to her opponents, they were executing theirs.

    Also, Bagginses hates the British most out of all the dirty foreigners that he hates, so some vitriol is to be expected there.

    Aw, now how can you hate the British? They gave us Stephen Fry and English linguistic hegemony.

    And (fun fact) the concentration camp.

    I don't really hate them that much, only coming off that way because anglophiles tend to say a lot of stupid shit, like claiming that the majority of the world uses the British parliamentary system because it's the most effective form of government even though more countries are US-style congressional and the British parliament gave them a huge austerity sandwich.
    Bagginses wrote:
    rockrnger wrote:
    Bagginses wrote:
    adytum wrote:
    And amusingly, the original war was started partly to divert attention from Argentina's floundering military regime's economic crisis.

    Today, the increasingly autocratic Argentinian government is facing severe internal economic turmoil.

    Hmm...

    I saw this piece of mental greatness on tumblr:

    tumblr_lze3fz00KB1r7ju92o1_500.png

    What's wrong with people? Why does such a large part of the population just not pay attention to facts?

    The UK didn't start this, at all.

    In the same way that the US didn't start tensions with Iran and Israel didn't start tensions with damn near everybody.

    You're right, those damn Brits, electing Cristina Kirchner and then having her start banging the drums. Will Blighty never learn?


    Oh right, that's bullshit. Britain isn't encroaching on Argentinian interests, it's quite the other way around.

    Thatcher has been pretty open about using the war for political gains.

    But she didn't cause Argentina to invade the Falklands. Can you blame her for using a war for political gain?

    Argentina invaded the Falklands, Britain was well within its rights to defend itself. Are we really supposed to be surprised that the politician used the event politically?

    I guess Obama shouldn't mention that he killed OBL or saved Detroit during the campaign or it negates the actions he took in the first place.

    It's fairly ignorant to claim that the UK has blame in this instance in the same way that Israel or the US are culpable in middle east politics.

    She escalated the tension to keep the matter in the news and appear tough on latinos. While Argentina initiated the attack, Thatcher was encouraging them to do so. Similarly, Camaron is pretending that Argentina is capable of capturing the islands and will take Scotland if he tries to decrease tensions with diplomacy.
    Mill wrote:
    Bagginses wrote:
    Mill wrote:
    Yeah, if the Falklanders are fine being British citizens than Argentina can go right the fuck off.

    Eh, Britain has a history of pulling shit like this. Ulster was districted so that there would be a reliable bare majority to keep the area in is clutches.

    I'm no expert on the Falklands but from what I understand there just really isn't an appreciable chunk of the population on them that wants to be Argentinian. I'm pretty sure that if you can get X% of the population to want to join you, you don't have a valid claim as far as most other countries are concerned. I'd argue that most countries would side with Britain because legitimizing Argentina's claim would open a can of worms best left closed.

    Ulster =/= Falklands

    Ireland had a thriving indigenous population, the Falklands had some penguins.

    How does that difference address my point. "Yes, I know all the test vehicles burst into flame, but they were tan. The sale models are painted blue."

    lolwut?

    Ireland is an entirely different beast with no real parallels.

    The Falklands are British. Have been since the early 1800s. No one lived there before them, they were empty rocks that Spain had abandoned. Argentina as zero claim on them.

    Ireland is a totally different beast. There's no native population of malvinans who are being kept from the ballot box or kept from having an opinion. The fascist dictator of Argentina invaded the Falklands without cause. The "instigating" that the UK did was giving their citizens full citizenship.

    Stop being a goose, Argentina doesn't have a leg to stand on here. Argentina just wants the oil that was found.

    None of which has anything to do with my noting that a majority of a district wanting to stay with Britain tends to be fairly questionable due to Britain's habit of gerrymandering. The lineage of the island's population has nothing to do with that.

  • OakeyOakey UKRegistered User regular
    poshniallo wrote:
    Also, Bagginses hates the British most out of all the dirty foreigners that he hates, so some vitriol is to be expected there.

    But...... but hasn't he named himself after a family of Hobbits from an English authors book?

    steam_sig.png
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Pi-r8 wrote:
    Am I the only one that actually has some sympathy for the Argentinean claim here?

    The Falkland Islands are very obviously within their sphere of influence. The UK has to send an aircraft carrier there to defend them, whereas the Argentinean military would be right there to defend them naturally. It would also make trade a lot easier, rather than having to make international imports for stuff that's right next door.

    Of course the people that live there are British- that's because the Brits had the firepower to keep the place all to themselves for 200 years. If Argentina had more firepower back in 1833 then those islands would be filled with Argentineans speaking Spanish. If we try to justify colonialism on the basis that it happened long in the past, then that just encourages nations to hold on to their colonies for a long time until they're forgiven for their crimes.

    What about a compromise? Argentina could make a deal with the UK where Argentina took over nominal ownership of the islands, with the promise that the Falklanders currently living there could continue to govern themselves as they wish without any interference from Argentina. Sort of like the Suez Canal I guess.

    Because bullshit? There was no war over the Falklands in 1833, no one lived there. It was an empty set of rocks floating in the South Atlantic. Argentina has no legitimate claim to the islands. It isn't like Britain invaded them and then fought off the Argentinians for two hundred years.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    I say giving the new worlders one after taking like 9000 times more land would be a nice gesture.

    Come on Brits be nice to the native Americans for once.

    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Bagginses wrote:
    poshniallo wrote:
    Thatcher using the Falklands War for political gain doesn't mean the junta were OK either.

    I am comfortable with thinking of both of them as evil, but Thatcher as being less evil. She was lying to her opponents, they were executing theirs.

    Also, Bagginses hates the British most out of all the dirty foreigners that he hates, so some vitriol is to be expected there.

    Aw, now how can you hate the British? They gave us Stephen Fry and English linguistic hegemony.

    And (fun fact) the concentration camp.

    I don't really hate them that much, only coming off that way because anglophiles tend to say a lot of stupid shit, like claiming that the majority of the world uses the British parliamentary system because it's the most effective form of government even though more countries are US-style congressional and the British parliament gave them a huge austerity sandwich.
    Bagginses wrote:
    rockrnger wrote:
    Bagginses wrote:
    adytum wrote:
    And amusingly, the original war was started partly to divert attention from Argentina's floundering military regime's economic crisis.

    Today, the increasingly autocratic Argentinian government is facing severe internal economic turmoil.

    Hmm...

    I saw this piece of mental greatness on tumblr:

    tumblr_lze3fz00KB1r7ju92o1_500.png

    What's wrong with people? Why does such a large part of the population just not pay attention to facts?

    The UK didn't start this, at all.

    In the same way that the US didn't start tensions with Iran and Israel didn't start tensions with damn near everybody.

    You're right, those damn Brits, electing Cristina Kirchner and then having her start banging the drums. Will Blighty never learn?


    Oh right, that's bullshit. Britain isn't encroaching on Argentinian interests, it's quite the other way around.

    Thatcher has been pretty open about using the war for political gains.

    But she didn't cause Argentina to invade the Falklands. Can you blame her for using a war for political gain?

    Argentina invaded the Falklands, Britain was well within its rights to defend itself. Are we really supposed to be surprised that the politician used the event politically?

    I guess Obama shouldn't mention that he killed OBL or saved Detroit during the campaign or it negates the actions he took in the first place.

    It's fairly ignorant to claim that the UK has blame in this instance in the same way that Israel or the US are culpable in middle east politics.

    She escalated the tension to keep the matter in the news and appear tough on latinos. While Argentina initiated the attack, Thatcher was encouraging them to do so. Similarly, Camaron is pretending that Argentina is capable of capturing the islands and will take Scotland if he tries to decrease tensions with diplomacy.
    Mill wrote:
    Bagginses wrote:
    Mill wrote:
    Yeah, if the Falklanders are fine being British citizens than Argentina can go right the fuck off.

    Eh, Britain has a history of pulling shit like this. Ulster was districted so that there would be a reliable bare majority to keep the area in is clutches.

    I'm no expert on the Falklands but from what I understand there just really isn't an appreciable chunk of the population on them that wants to be Argentinian. I'm pretty sure that if you can get X% of the population to want to join you, you don't have a valid claim as far as most other countries are concerned. I'd argue that most countries would side with Britain because legitimizing Argentina's claim would open a can of worms best left closed.

    Ulster =/= Falklands

    Ireland had a thriving indigenous population, the Falklands had some penguins.

    How does that difference address my point. "Yes, I know all the test vehicles burst into flame, but they were tan. The sale models are painted blue."

    lolwut?

    Ireland is an entirely different beast with no real parallels.

    The Falklands are British. Have been since the early 1800s. No one lived there before them, they were empty rocks that Spain had abandoned. Argentina as zero claim on them.

    Ireland is a totally different beast. There's no native population of malvinans who are being kept from the ballot box or kept from having an opinion. The fascist dictator of Argentina invaded the Falklands without cause. The "instigating" that the UK did was giving their citizens full citizenship.

    Stop being a goose, Argentina doesn't have a leg to stand on here. Argentina just wants the oil that was found.

    None of which has anything to do with my noting that a majority of a district wanting to stay with Britain tends to be fairly questionable due to Britain's habit of gerrymandering. The lineage of the island's population has nothing to do with that.

    ...

    Then there's no reason to make a point here. There's nothing to gerrymander on the Falklands. There are Falklanders who want to be British. You're projecting.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Kagera wrote:
    I say giving the new worlders one after taking like 9000 times more land would be a nice gesture.

    Come on Brits be nice to the native Americans for once.

    You realize the Argentineans are as Native American as white people from the US, right?

    Lh96QHG.png
  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    Pi-r8 wrote:
    Am I the only one that actually has some sympathy for the Argentinean claim here?

    The Falkland Islands are very obviously within their sphere of influence. The UK has to send an aircraft carrier there to defend them, whereas the Argentinean military would be right there to defend them naturally. It would also make trade a lot easier, rather than having to make international imports for stuff that's right next door.

    Of course the people that live there are British- that's because the Brits had the firepower to keep the place all to themselves for 200 years. If Argentina had more firepower back in 1833 then those islands would be filled with Argentineans speaking Spanish. If we try to justify colonialism on the basis that it happened long in the past, then that just encourages nations to hold on to their colonies for a long time until they're forgiven for their crimes.

    What about a compromise? Argentina could make a deal with the UK where Argentina took over nominal ownership of the islands, with the promise that the Falklanders currently living there could continue to govern themselves as they wish without any interference from Argentina. Sort of like the Suez Canal I guess.

    Because bullshit? There was no war over the Falklands in 1833, no one lived there. It was an empty set of rocks floating in the South Atlantic. Argentina has no legitimate claim to the islands. It isn't like Britain invaded them and then fought off the Argentinians for two hundred years.

    They didn't need to fight, because England at the time was the undisputed world superpower, and no other country stood a chance against them (certainly not Argentina anyway). If their military situations had been reversed, do you really think Argentina wouldn't have been the country that took over those empty rocks? Which goes to show that the UK does not have any kind of moral claim here- they just happen to have the bigger stick.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Pi-r8 wrote:
    Pi-r8 wrote:
    Am I the only one that actually has some sympathy for the Argentinean claim here?

    The Falkland Islands are very obviously within their sphere of influence. The UK has to send an aircraft carrier there to defend them, whereas the Argentinean military would be right there to defend them naturally. It would also make trade a lot easier, rather than having to make international imports for stuff that's right next door.

    Of course the people that live there are British- that's because the Brits had the firepower to keep the place all to themselves for 200 years. If Argentina had more firepower back in 1833 then those islands would be filled with Argentineans speaking Spanish. If we try to justify colonialism on the basis that it happened long in the past, then that just encourages nations to hold on to their colonies for a long time until they're forgiven for their crimes.

    What about a compromise? Argentina could make a deal with the UK where Argentina took over nominal ownership of the islands, with the promise that the Falklanders currently living there could continue to govern themselves as they wish without any interference from Argentina. Sort of like the Suez Canal I guess.

    Because bullshit? There was no war over the Falklands in 1833, no one lived there. It was an empty set of rocks floating in the South Atlantic. Argentina has no legitimate claim to the islands. It isn't like Britain invaded them and then fought off the Argentinians for two hundred years.

    They didn't need to fight, because England at the time was the undisputed world superpower, and no other country stood a chance against them (certainly not Argentina anyway). If their military situations had been reversed, do you really think Argentina wouldn't have been the country that took over those empty rocks? Which goes to show that the UK does not have any kind of moral claim here- they just happen to have the bigger stick.

    o.O

    Your world must be a strange one to live in.

    Actually, the Falklands shows how colonization should work: the Brits didn't kill any natives, they didn't steal it from anyone (nominally the Spanish, but the argument could be that the Spanish stole it from them first), they set settlers down and they lived alone.

    There is no reason for the UK to bow to Argentina on this one.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    Kagera wrote:
    I say giving the new worlders one after taking like 9000 times more land would be a nice gesture.

    Come on Brits be nice to the native Americans for once.

    You realize the Argentineans are as Native American as white people from the US, right?

    I'm being facetious y'know.

    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Kagera wrote:
    Kagera wrote:
    I say giving the new worlders one after taking like 9000 times more land would be a nice gesture.

    Come on Brits be nice to the native Americans for once.

    You realize the Argentineans are as Native American as white people from the US, right?

    I'm being facetious y'know.

    I know nothing of the sort. Penguins at dawn!

    Lh96QHG.png
  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    Give it back to the penguins! Declare a penguin sanctuary!

    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Kagera wrote:
    Give it back to the penguins! Declare a penguin sanctuary!

    You and all your French missiles couldn't make me, Kagera!

    Lh96QHG.png
  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    Pi-r8 wrote:
    Pi-r8 wrote:
    Am I the only one that actually has some sympathy for the Argentinean claim here?

    The Falkland Islands are very obviously within their sphere of influence. The UK has to send an aircraft carrier there to defend them, whereas the Argentinean military would be right there to defend them naturally. It would also make trade a lot easier, rather than having to make international imports for stuff that's right next door.

    Of course the people that live there are British- that's because the Brits had the firepower to keep the place all to themselves for 200 years. If Argentina had more firepower back in 1833 then those islands would be filled with Argentineans speaking Spanish. If we try to justify colonialism on the basis that it happened long in the past, then that just encourages nations to hold on to their colonies for a long time until they're forgiven for their crimes.

    What about a compromise? Argentina could make a deal with the UK where Argentina took over nominal ownership of the islands, with the promise that the Falklanders currently living there could continue to govern themselves as they wish without any interference from Argentina. Sort of like the Suez Canal I guess.

    Because bullshit? There was no war over the Falklands in 1833, no one lived there. It was an empty set of rocks floating in the South Atlantic. Argentina has no legitimate claim to the islands. It isn't like Britain invaded them and then fought off the Argentinians for two hundred years.

    They didn't need to fight, because England at the time was the undisputed world superpower, and no other country stood a chance against them (certainly not Argentina anyway). If their military situations had been reversed, do you really think Argentina wouldn't have been the country that took over those empty rocks? Which goes to show that the UK does not have any kind of moral claim here- they just happen to have the bigger stick.

    o.O

    Your world must be a strange one to live in.

    Actually, the Falklands shows how colonization should work: the Brits didn't kill any natives, they didn't steal it from anyone (nominally the Spanish, but the argument could be that the Spanish stole it from them first), they set settlers down and they lived alone.

    There is no reason for the UK to bow to Argentina on this one.
    So if someone from Argentina wants to move to the Falkland islands, do the Brits let them do that? Or do they use the force of the Royal Navy to keep them out? If they're using force to keep the islands British then it's not really a peaceful colonization...

    (Not that I think Argentina has an ironclad claim to the island either. I just have some sympathy for them. It's humiliating for any nation to have "their" island taken away by military force)

  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    edited February 2012
    Pi-r8 wrote:

    (Not that I think Argentina has an ironclad claim to the island either. I just have some sympathy for them. It's humiliating for any nation to have "their" island taken away by military force)

    Good thing that didn't actually happen then.

    poshniallo on
    I figure I could take a bear.
  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    Argentina didn't even exist when the claim was made.

    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Pi-r8 wrote:
    Pi-r8 wrote:
    Pi-r8 wrote:
    Am I the only one that actually has some sympathy for the Argentinean claim here?

    The Falkland Islands are very obviously within their sphere of influence. The UK has to send an aircraft carrier there to defend them, whereas the Argentinean military would be right there to defend them naturally. It would also make trade a lot easier, rather than having to make international imports for stuff that's right next door.

    Of course the people that live there are British- that's because the Brits had the firepower to keep the place all to themselves for 200 years. If Argentina had more firepower back in 1833 then those islands would be filled with Argentineans speaking Spanish. If we try to justify colonialism on the basis that it happened long in the past, then that just encourages nations to hold on to their colonies for a long time until they're forgiven for their crimes.

    What about a compromise? Argentina could make a deal with the UK where Argentina took over nominal ownership of the islands, with the promise that the Falklanders currently living there could continue to govern themselves as they wish without any interference from Argentina. Sort of like the Suez Canal I guess.

    Because bullshit? There was no war over the Falklands in 1833, no one lived there. It was an empty set of rocks floating in the South Atlantic. Argentina has no legitimate claim to the islands. It isn't like Britain invaded them and then fought off the Argentinians for two hundred years.

    They didn't need to fight, because England at the time was the undisputed world superpower, and no other country stood a chance against them (certainly not Argentina anyway). If their military situations had been reversed, do you really think Argentina wouldn't have been the country that took over those empty rocks? Which goes to show that the UK does not have any kind of moral claim here- they just happen to have the bigger stick.

    o.O

    Your world must be a strange one to live in.

    Actually, the Falklands shows how colonization should work: the Brits didn't kill any natives, they didn't steal it from anyone (nominally the Spanish, but the argument could be that the Spanish stole it from them first), they set settlers down and they lived alone.

    There is no reason for the UK to bow to Argentina on this one.
    So if someone from Argentina wants to move to the Falkland islands, do the Brits let them do that? Or do they use the force of the Royal Navy to keep them out? If they're using force to keep the islands British then it's not really a peaceful colonization...

    (Not that I think Argentina has an ironclad claim to the island either. I just have some sympathy for them. It's humiliating for any nation to have "their" island taken away by military force)

    Uh... if someone from Argentina wanted to move to the Falklands I imagine they'd be allowed to do so. The only country that is fucking with people is Argentina. They're using their political and economic influence to convince the rest of South America to block trade to Falklander ships. There's never been a British naval force blockading the islands.

    The only force is the group of colonists who arrived on the Falklands in 1833 to establish a colony.

    The only imperialism here is Argentinean.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    I'm surprised Argentina hasn't tried to carpetbag the island then.

    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
This discussion has been closed.