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

1181920212224»

Posts

  • Knuckle DraggerKnuckle Dragger Explosive Ovine Disposal Registered User regular
    Really, this just provides the Islanders with one more way of proving their nationality, participating in the nearly five hundred year old British tradition of telling popes to go fuck themselves.

    CasualMr RayJusticeforPlutoSalvation122Venkman90Regina FongknitdanCorehealerAndy Joe
  • JusticeforPlutoJusticeforPluto Total Goober Registered User regular
    There can be no talks until Argentina admits that the Falkland Islanders exist. This is probably because Argentina knows they have no case against the Brits if they do.

    And the "militarization of the South Atlantic"? Well by golly, maybe the UK woukd feel the need to fortify the Falklands if you didn't invade them without justification in the 80s. Really, if Argentina though they could get away with it, they would probably do so again.

  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    Oh now they like the idea of going to an international court to solve a problem.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-28587653

  • KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    V1m wrote: »
    Oh now they like the idea of going to an international court to solve a problem.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-28587653

    The Ruffo clause seems to be key

    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    I skimmed through the article but I couldn't find where this is Britain's fault. Perhaps Sean Pean will offer to buy out these bonds?

  • KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    V1m wrote: »
    I skimmed through the article but I couldn't find where this is Britain's fault. Perhaps Sean Pean will offer to buy out these bonds?

    Oddly enough not all Argentinian issues involve Britain, although if you are in a portal from the 1930s you might be right

    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    Your sarcasm-o-meter may need a recalibration.

    KalkinoCorehealer
  • KalkinoKalkino Buttons Londres Registered User regular
    V1m wrote: »
    Your sarcasm-o-meter may need a recalibration.

    Nah, I got it, I just thought that since you posted the story in a thread about but the Falklands it would pay to try and make it clear that we were not really talking about the Falklands lest we once again be swamped with discussion of such.

    Freedom for the Northern Isles!
    Synthesis
  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    OK this is getting pretty pathetic now: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30149799

  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    V1m wrote: »
    OK this is getting pretty pathetic now: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30149799

    There was a time when it wasn't?

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
    Rhan9Captain Marcus
  • Rhan9Rhan9 Registered User regular
    When it comes to this issue, Argentina is thoroughly and completely in the wrong. That isn't going to change with bullshit rhetoric and some plaques.

    dispatch.o
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited December 2018
    @Julius
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    One needs to also factor in that Abe's party refuses to acknowledge any of the atrocities committed by the Japanese during World War II, from keeping it out of history textbooks to complaining about a statue commemorating comfort women in a Chinese-majority neighborhood in California, to badgering the biggest English-language Japanese newspaper to issue this tortured clarification/apology just the other day:

    JFC that is chilling. That's right up there with the worst of Trump's anti-press crap.

    This is why the push for militarization of Japan is so unnerving. Because it's hand-in-hand with their government refusing to acknowledge that they ever did anything in the first place to deserve all these restrictions on them. It's not just the politicians, either; the population at large doesn't know much about the crimes committed by Japanese troops during the war. (But we're veering a bit off-topic here, so I'll leave it at that.)

    Petulant martyr syndrome is the cause of half the wars in the world. So many countries keep intricate account of the wrongs done to them and wipe the wrongs done by them from the history books.

    One of the nice things about being British is to be comfortably in the wrong in every war save WW2. It helps with the potential for denial.

    Eh, we did some stuff there too - just for old time's sake. Maybe the Falklands was OK...?

    The Falklands was pointless grasping at the last shreds of Empire.

    What the hell are you on about? The Falklands was Argentina deciding that because these islands are near us, they are obviously ours and the UK rightfully telling them to piss off.

    Yeah the British obviously had the superior claim because the islands were much more near to them.


    The Argentinian claim to the islands is obviously not super great, but that doesn't mean Badger isn't right that the war for the British was about the Empire. And it is certainly not true that the war was Argentina suddenly deciding the islands were theirs. That is such an ignorant summary of the historical conflict that it seems deliberate. Argentine had to be kicked out before the British established current rule! If we suppose that a history of original control is the relevant factor, the Argentinian claim is probably stronger than that of the British (who weren't even the first to colonize it).

    If we're going to use words like "rightfully" it is probably best to be very clear what we mean by them.

    No, it's snarky but entirely accurate. Any claim to the islands is colonial in nature. But mostly harmless because no one lived there. At the time of the war the Falklands was inhabited by UK subjects of UK descent who had no interest in Argentinian rule and had been in that state for like ... 150 years or so? The Argentinian invasion had zero legitimacy. Like seriously, what possible bullshit excuse can you come up with for it? In what possible way was the UK wrong for kicking the Argentinians out?

    Pretending like the UK was in any way in the wrong here is anti-British revisionist history. Which is hilarious because that basically never happens and it's usually the opposite. There's even an entire thread we had like 5 years ago that's in large part about how stupid the Falklands War revisionist history is: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/156006/the-falkland-islands-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-tell-argentina-to-stfu/p1

    Which would be the more appropriate place to relocate this discussions since the US was not a party to the conflict.

    Shryke, the Argentinians claimed (or whatever) the islands in 1820, when British rule was long gone and there was only a plaque left saying it. And then the UK kicked them out. At that time there were only a couple of people settled there of course, but Argentine was still the (colonial) ruler.

    This is the basis of their claim, coupled with their independence from Spain granting them it. The Falklands war wasn't them deciding that these islands looked nice, it was them reclaiming territory they lost when they were a very young state. You could say that this is no rightfull claim, as I would, but then the UK claim isn't either. But to characterize the conflict as sudden greed vs principled defense, instead of another chapter in the history of a region always contested, is wrong. It is fine to say the UK wasn't in the wrong, but it is dumb to say it was totally in the right. (especially given the debate at the time)

    And that basis is complete bullshit and in actual fact it's just an excuse for some Argentinian chest-thumping (as they did before and have done since) because the islands are, like, right there so clearly our claim is stronger even though the British have controlled and had a population on the island for over a century at that point. This is like claiming a british invasion of Virginia would have some legitimacy.

    shryke on
    Kipling217dispatch.oKamar
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    @CelestialBadger
    The strength of the claim is irrelevant. It wasn't worth fighting a war over. About 1,000 people died. Not a big war, but considering only about 3,000 people live there...

    (Most of the casualties were armed forces, by the way, lest anyone think 1/3 of the islands were wiped out)

    That's what I mean about "petulant martyr syndrome." Everyone always gets on their high horse and all rationality disappears.

    The British were just feeling bad about the last shreds of empire slipping away.

    Or, you know, someone actually invaded UK territory and it is the job of the government to protect it's citizens from shit like foreign invasion.

    "Oh, it's not enough people to bother with" is a ridiculous position. What exactly is the minimum amount? Why should there be one exactly? This whoel stance is just bullshit revisionist history. Pulling a silly excuse from one's ass to try and paper over the fact that it's just a knee-jerk anti-colonialism viewpoint taken to the most ridiculous extreme. It must be wrong because the British can't be right when fighting a war!

    Kipling217AridholKamarYall
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    V1m wrote: »
    OK this is getting pretty pathetic now: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30149799

    Besides, the UK is going to be extremely desperate to make trade deals - and may even need direct aid drops if worst case predictions hold true - very soon. It would be a good time to make nice and start asking how much London wants for those islands.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    V1m wrote: »
    OK this is getting pretty pathetic now: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30149799

    Besides, the UK is going to be extremely desperate to make trade deals - and may even need direct aid drops if worst case predictions hold true - very soon. It would be a good time to make nice and start asking how much London wants for those islands.

    That news is slightly out of date at this point.

  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    @Julius
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    One needs to also factor in that Abe's party refuses to acknowledge any of the atrocities committed by the Japanese during World War II, from keeping it out of history textbooks to complaining about a statue commemorating comfort women in a Chinese-majority neighborhood in California, to badgering the biggest English-language Japanese newspaper to issue this tortured clarification/apology just the other day:

    JFC that is chilling. That's right up there with the worst of Trump's anti-press crap.

    This is why the push for militarization of Japan is so unnerving. Because it's hand-in-hand with their government refusing to acknowledge that they ever did anything in the first place to deserve all these restrictions on them. It's not just the politicians, either; the population at large doesn't know much about the crimes committed by Japanese troops during the war. (But we're veering a bit off-topic here, so I'll leave it at that.)

    Petulant martyr syndrome is the cause of half the wars in the world. So many countries keep intricate account of the wrongs done to them and wipe the wrongs done by them from the history books.

    One of the nice things about being British is to be comfortably in the wrong in every war save WW2. It helps with the potential for denial.

    Eh, we did some stuff there too - just for old time's sake. Maybe the Falklands was OK...?

    The Falklands was pointless grasping at the last shreds of Empire.

    What the hell are you on about? The Falklands was Argentina deciding that because these islands are near us, they are obviously ours and the UK rightfully telling them to piss off.

    Yeah the British obviously had the superior claim because the islands were much more near to them.


    The Argentinian claim to the islands is obviously not super great, but that doesn't mean Badger isn't right that the war for the British was about the Empire. And it is certainly not true that the war was Argentina suddenly deciding the islands were theirs. That is such an ignorant summary of the historical conflict that it seems deliberate. Argentine had to be kicked out before the British established current rule! If we suppose that a history of original control is the relevant factor, the Argentinian claim is probably stronger than that of the British (who weren't even the first to colonize it).

    If we're going to use words like "rightfully" it is probably best to be very clear what we mean by them.

    No, it's snarky but entirely accurate. Any claim to the islands is colonial in nature. But mostly harmless because no one lived there. At the time of the war the Falklands was inhabited by UK subjects of UK descent who had no interest in Argentinian rule and had been in that state for like ... 150 years or so? The Argentinian invasion had zero legitimacy. Like seriously, what possible bullshit excuse can you come up with for it? In what possible way was the UK wrong for kicking the Argentinians out?

    Pretending like the UK was in any way in the wrong here is anti-British revisionist history. Which is hilarious because that basically never happens and it's usually the opposite. There's even an entire thread we had like 5 years ago that's in large part about how stupid the Falklands War revisionist history is: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/156006/the-falkland-islands-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-tell-argentina-to-stfu/p1

    Which would be the more appropriate place to relocate this discussions since the US was not a party to the conflict.

    Shryke, the Argentinians claimed (or whatever) the islands in 1820, when British rule was long gone and there was only a plaque left saying it. And then the UK kicked them out. At that time there were only a couple of people settled there of course, but Argentine was still the (colonial) ruler.

    This is the basis of their claim, coupled with their independence from Spain granting them it. The Falklands war wasn't them deciding that these islands looked nice, it was them reclaiming territory they lost when they were a very young state. You could say that this is no rightfull claim, as I would, but then the UK claim isn't either. But to characterize the conflict as sudden greed vs principled defense, instead of another chapter in the history of a region always contested, is wrong. It is fine to say the UK wasn't in the wrong, but it is dumb to say it was totally in the right. (especially given the debate at the time)

    And that basis is complete bullshit and in actual fact it's just an excuse for some Argentinian chest-thumping because the islands are, like, right there so clearly our claim is stronger even though the British have controlled and had a population on the island for over a century at that point. This is like claiming a british invasion of Virginia would have some legitimacy.

    It is not any more bullshit than any other colonial claim. If the British kicked everyone out of Virginia and put their own settlers there for 100 years I would expect 0% Americans to go "well fair is fair, you guys did kick us out and have now lived there for a while so it's yours.". You can't call bullshit and then pretend that control and establishing a population is actually relevant. That is the basis of the claim!

    like, are you saying that the British have the legit claim because they kept control for a long time? Is there some formula for determining the point where you have occupied a territory long enough that it is now yours?


    (as I said, the sole (and morally right) reason that the Falklands should be part of the UK at the moment is that the people there want it. but that is also some shit given that they kicked out the previous people living there.) I am not saying Argentine is right, I'm saying I'm sympathetic to their claim given the opposing claims also made by the UK.

    Styrofoam Sammich
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    V1m wrote: »
    OK this is getting pretty pathetic now: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30149799

    Besides, the UK is going to be extremely desperate to make trade deals - and may even need direct aid drops if worst case predictions hold true - very soon. It would be a good time to make nice and start asking how much London wants for those islands.

    That news is slightly out of date at this point.

    Ah. Just looked at the date. I thought was something from the G-20.

  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    @Julius
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    One needs to also factor in that Abe's party refuses to acknowledge any of the atrocities committed by the Japanese during World War II, from keeping it out of history textbooks to complaining about a statue commemorating comfort women in a Chinese-majority neighborhood in California, to badgering the biggest English-language Japanese newspaper to issue this tortured clarification/apology just the other day:

    JFC that is chilling. That's right up there with the worst of Trump's anti-press crap.

    This is why the push for militarization of Japan is so unnerving. Because it's hand-in-hand with their government refusing to acknowledge that they ever did anything in the first place to deserve all these restrictions on them. It's not just the politicians, either; the population at large doesn't know much about the crimes committed by Japanese troops during the war. (But we're veering a bit off-topic here, so I'll leave it at that.)

    Petulant martyr syndrome is the cause of half the wars in the world. So many countries keep intricate account of the wrongs done to them and wipe the wrongs done by them from the history books.

    One of the nice things about being British is to be comfortably in the wrong in every war save WW2. It helps with the potential for denial.

    Eh, we did some stuff there too - just for old time's sake. Maybe the Falklands was OK...?

    The Falklands was pointless grasping at the last shreds of Empire.

    What the hell are you on about? The Falklands was Argentina deciding that because these islands are near us, they are obviously ours and the UK rightfully telling them to piss off.

    Yeah the British obviously had the superior claim because the islands were much more near to them.


    The Argentinian claim to the islands is obviously not super great, but that doesn't mean Badger isn't right that the war for the British was about the Empire. And it is certainly not true that the war was Argentina suddenly deciding the islands were theirs. That is such an ignorant summary of the historical conflict that it seems deliberate. Argentine had to be kicked out before the British established current rule! If we suppose that a history of original control is the relevant factor, the Argentinian claim is probably stronger than that of the British (who weren't even the first to colonize it).

    If we're going to use words like "rightfully" it is probably best to be very clear what we mean by them.

    No, it's snarky but entirely accurate. Any claim to the islands is colonial in nature. But mostly harmless because no one lived there. At the time of the war the Falklands was inhabited by UK subjects of UK descent who had no interest in Argentinian rule and had been in that state for like ... 150 years or so? The Argentinian invasion had zero legitimacy. Like seriously, what possible bullshit excuse can you come up with for it? In what possible way was the UK wrong for kicking the Argentinians out?

    Pretending like the UK was in any way in the wrong here is anti-British revisionist history. Which is hilarious because that basically never happens and it's usually the opposite. There's even an entire thread we had like 5 years ago that's in large part about how stupid the Falklands War revisionist history is: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/156006/the-falkland-islands-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-tell-argentina-to-stfu/p1

    Which would be the more appropriate place to relocate this discussions since the US was not a party to the conflict.

    Shryke, the Argentinians claimed (or whatever) the islands in 1820, when British rule was long gone and there was only a plaque left saying it. And then the UK kicked them out. At that time there were only a couple of people settled there of course, but Argentine was still the (colonial) ruler.

    This is the basis of their claim, coupled with their independence from Spain granting them it. The Falklands war wasn't them deciding that these islands looked nice, it was them reclaiming territory they lost when they were a very young state. You could say that this is no rightfull claim, as I would, but then the UK claim isn't either. But to characterize the conflict as sudden greed vs principled defense, instead of another chapter in the history of a region always contested, is wrong. It is fine to say the UK wasn't in the wrong, but it is dumb to say it was totally in the right. (especially given the debate at the time)

    And that basis is complete bullshit and in actual fact it's just an excuse for some Argentinian chest-thumping because the islands are, like, right there so clearly our claim is stronger even though the British have controlled and had a population on the island for over a century at that point. This is like claiming a british invasion of Virginia would have some legitimacy.

    It is not any more bullshit than any other colonial claim. If the British kicked everyone out of Virginia and put their own settlers there for 100 years I would expect 0% Americans to go "well fair is fair, you guys did kick us out and have now lived there for a while so it's yours.". You can't call bullshit and then pretend that control and establishing a population is actually relevant. That is the basis of the claim!

    like, are you saying that the British have the legit claim because they kept control for a long time?]Is there some formula for determining the point where you have occupied a territory long enough that it is now yours?


    (as I said, the sole (and morally right) reason that the Falklands should be part of the UK at the moment is that the people there want it. but that is also some shit given that they kicked out the previous people living there.) I am not saying Argentine is right, I'm saying I'm sympathetic to their claim given the opposing claims also made by the UK.

    Yes you silly goose, that is in fact one of the ways we decide who owns which parts of the world. We look at who the fuck lives there right now, how long they have lived there and how many there are. IT IS ENCODED INTO INTERNATIONAL LAW! THERE IS PRECEDENT AND EVERYTHING.

    We don't look at random claims from 150 years ago, that where never enforced and where left dormant except for periods when the claimant nation needs to look good domestically. We certainly don't accept claims made at gunpoint, without even requesting the International Court or the UN for a judgment.

    Like get off your high goddamn horse. Just cause you don't like the British, doesn't mean they where wrong. Like look up the Svaldbard Treaty, or the Norwegian/Danish dispute over the Ownership of Greenland. They are surprisingly relevant.

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
    shrykemrondeauKamarYall
  • TastyfishTastyfish Registered User regular
    edited December 2018
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    @Julius
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    One needs to also factor in that Abe's party refuses to acknowledge any of the atrocities committed by the Japanese during World War II, from keeping it out of history textbooks to complaining about a statue commemorating comfort women in a Chinese-majority neighborhood in California, to badgering the biggest English-language Japanese newspaper to issue this tortured clarification/apology just the other day:

    JFC that is chilling. That's right up there with the worst of Trump's anti-press crap.

    This is why the push for militarization of Japan is so unnerving. Because it's hand-in-hand with their government refusing to acknowledge that they ever did anything in the first place to deserve all these restrictions on them. It's not just the politicians, either; the population at large doesn't know much about the crimes committed by Japanese troops during the war. (But we're veering a bit off-topic here, so I'll leave it at that.)

    Petulant martyr syndrome is the cause of half the wars in the world. So many countries keep intricate account of the wrongs done to them and wipe the wrongs done by them from the history books.

    One of the nice things about being British is to be comfortably in the wrong in every war save WW2. It helps with the potential for denial.

    Eh, we did some stuff there too - just for old time's sake. Maybe the Falklands was OK...?

    The Falklands was pointless grasping at the last shreds of Empire.

    What the hell are you on about? The Falklands was Argentina deciding that because these islands are near us, they are obviously ours and the UK rightfully telling them to piss off.

    Yeah the British obviously had the superior claim because the islands were much more near to them.


    The Argentinian claim to the islands is obviously not super great, but that doesn't mean Badger isn't right that the war for the British was about the Empire. And it is certainly not true that the war was Argentina suddenly deciding the islands were theirs. That is such an ignorant summary of the historical conflict that it seems deliberate. Argentine had to be kicked out before the British established current rule! If we suppose that a history of original control is the relevant factor, the Argentinian claim is probably stronger than that of the British (who weren't even the first to colonize it).

    If we're going to use words like "rightfully" it is probably best to be very clear what we mean by them.

    No, it's snarky but entirely accurate. Any claim to the islands is colonial in nature. But mostly harmless because no one lived there. At the time of the war the Falklands was inhabited by UK subjects of UK descent who had no interest in Argentinian rule and had been in that state for like ... 150 years or so? The Argentinian invasion had zero legitimacy. Like seriously, what possible bullshit excuse can you come up with for it? In what possible way was the UK wrong for kicking the Argentinians out?

    Pretending like the UK was in any way in the wrong here is anti-British revisionist history. Which is hilarious because that basically never happens and it's usually the opposite. There's even an entire thread we had like 5 years ago that's in large part about how stupid the Falklands War revisionist history is: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/156006/the-falkland-islands-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-tell-argentina-to-stfu/p1

    Which would be the more appropriate place to relocate this discussions since the US was not a party to the conflict.

    Shryke, the Argentinians claimed (or whatever) the islands in 1820, when British rule was long gone and there was only a plaque left saying it. And then the UK kicked them out. At that time there were only a couple of people settled there of course, but Argentine was still the (colonial) ruler.

    This is the basis of their claim, coupled with their independence from Spain granting them it. The Falklands war wasn't them deciding that these islands looked nice, it was them reclaiming territory they lost when they were a very young state. You could say that this is no rightfull claim, as I would, but then the UK claim isn't either. But to characterize the conflict as sudden greed vs principled defense, instead of another chapter in the history of a region always contested, is wrong. It is fine to say the UK wasn't in the wrong, but it is dumb to say it was totally in the right. (especially given the debate at the time)

    And that basis is complete bullshit and in actual fact it's just an excuse for some Argentinian chest-thumping because the islands are, like, right there so clearly our claim is stronger even though the British have controlled and had a population on the island for over a century at that point. This is like claiming a british invasion of Virginia would have some legitimacy.

    It is not any more bullshit than any other colonial claim. If the British kicked everyone out of Virginia and put their own settlers there for 100 years I would expect 0% Americans to go "well fair is fair, you guys did kick us out and have now lived there for a while so it's yours.". You can't call bullshit and then pretend that control and establishing a population is actually relevant. That is the basis of the claim!

    like, are you saying that the British have the legit claim because they kept control for a long time? Is there some formula for determining the point where you have occupied a territory long enough that it is now yours?


    (as I said, the sole (and morally right) reason that the Falklands should be part of the UK at the moment is that the people there want it. but that is also some shit given that they kicked out the previous people living there.) I am not saying Argentine is right, I'm saying I'm sympathetic to their claim given the opposing claims also made by the UK.

    Wait, so does this mean we can have Virginia back, before returning it to the native tribes? Clearly there is a legitimacy to claims based on how long people have been there, and who is there now.
    As for the Falklands, the previous people there weren't kicked out anywhere.

    Tastyfish on
  • PLAPLA The process.Registered User regular
    Whom did the british kick out?

  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    PLA wrote: »
    Whom did the british kick out?

    According to wikipedia, 27 people, only 12 of whom were Argentinian.

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
    shrykeKipling217HappylilElfJulius
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    One needs to also factor in that Abe's party refuses to acknowledge any of the atrocities committed by the Japanese during World War II, from keeping it out of history textbooks to complaining about a statue commemorating comfort women in a Chinese-majority neighborhood in California, to badgering the biggest English-language Japanese newspaper to issue this tortured clarification/apology just the other day:

    JFC that is chilling. That's right up there with the worst of Trump's anti-press crap.

    This is why the push for militarization of Japan is so unnerving. Because it's hand-in-hand with their government refusing to acknowledge that they ever did anything in the first place to deserve all these restrictions on them. It's not just the politicians, either; the population at large doesn't know much about the crimes committed by Japanese troops during the war. (But we're veering a bit off-topic here, so I'll leave it at that.)

    Petulant martyr syndrome is the cause of half the wars in the world. So many countries keep intricate account of the wrongs done to them and wipe the wrongs done by them from the history books.

    One of the nice things about being British is to be comfortably in the wrong in every war save WW2. It helps with the potential for denial.

    Eh, we did some stuff there too - just for old time's sake. Maybe the Falklands was OK...?

    The Falklands was pointless grasping at the last shreds of Empire.

    What the hell are you on about? The Falklands was Argentina deciding that because these islands are near us, they are obviously ours and the UK rightfully telling them to piss off.

    Yeah the British obviously had the superior claim because the islands were much more near to them.


    The Argentinian claim to the islands is obviously not super great, but that doesn't mean Badger isn't right that the war for the British was about the Empire. And it is certainly not true that the war was Argentina suddenly deciding the islands were theirs. That is such an ignorant summary of the historical conflict that it seems deliberate. Argentine had to be kicked out before the British established current rule! If we suppose that a history of original control is the relevant factor, the Argentinian claim is probably stronger than that of the British (who weren't even the first to colonize it).

    If we're going to use words like "rightfully" it is probably best to be very clear what we mean by them.

    No, it's snarky but entirely accurate. Any claim to the islands is colonial in nature. But mostly harmless because no one lived there. At the time of the war the Falklands was inhabited by UK subjects of UK descent who had no interest in Argentinian rule and had been in that state for like ... 150 years or so? The Argentinian invasion had zero legitimacy. Like seriously, what possible bullshit excuse can you come up with for it? In what possible way was the UK wrong for kicking the Argentinians out?

    Pretending like the UK was in any way in the wrong here is anti-British revisionist history. Which is hilarious because that basically never happens and it's usually the opposite. There's even an entire thread we had like 5 years ago that's in large part about how stupid the Falklands War revisionist history is: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/156006/the-falkland-islands-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-tell-argentina-to-stfu/p1

    Which would be the more appropriate place to relocate this discussions since the US was not a party to the conflict.

    Shryke, the Argentinians claimed (or whatever) the islands in 1820, when British rule was long gone and there was only a plaque left saying it. And then the UK kicked them out. At that time there were only a couple of people settled there of course, but Argentine was still the (colonial) ruler.

    This is the basis of their claim, coupled with their independence from Spain granting them it. The Falklands war wasn't them deciding that these islands looked nice, it was them reclaiming territory they lost when they were a very young state. You could say that this is no rightfull claim, as I would, but then the UK claim isn't either. But to characterize the conflict as sudden greed vs principled defense, instead of another chapter in the history of a region always contested, is wrong. It is fine to say the UK wasn't in the wrong, but it is dumb to say it was totally in the right. (especially given the debate at the time)

    And that basis is complete bullshit and in actual fact it's just an excuse for some Argentinian chest-thumping because the islands are, like, right there so clearly our claim is stronger even though the British have controlled and had a population on the island for over a century at that point. This is like claiming a british invasion of Virginia would have some legitimacy.

    It is not any more bullshit than any other colonial claim. If the British kicked everyone out of Virginia and put their own settlers there for 100 years I would expect 0% Americans to go "well fair is fair, you guys did kick us out and have now lived there for a while so it's yours.". You can't call bullshit and then pretend that control and establishing a population is actually relevant. That is the basis of the claim!

    like, are you saying that the British have the legit claim because they kept control for a long time? Is there some formula for determining the point where you have occupied a territory long enough that it is now yours?


    (as I said, the sole (and morally right) reason that the Falklands should be part of the UK at the moment is that the people there want it. but that is also some shit given that they kicked out the previous people living there.) I am not saying Argentine is right, I'm saying I'm sympathetic to their claim given the opposing claims also made by the UK.

    Wait, so you are suggesting the British could invade the US east coast and this would be fine? At some point you should stop and really think about what you are saying here.

    Your entire claim here is patently ridiculous. It was UK territory inhabited by descendants of settlers from the UK who wanted to stay within the UK.

  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    @Julius
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    One needs to also factor in that Abe's party refuses to acknowledge any of the atrocities committed by the Japanese during World War II, from keeping it out of history textbooks to complaining about a statue commemorating comfort women in a Chinese-majority neighborhood in California, to badgering the biggest English-language Japanese newspaper to issue this tortured clarification/apology just the other day:

    JFC that is chilling. That's right up there with the worst of Trump's anti-press crap.

    This is why the push for militarization of Japan is so unnerving. Because it's hand-in-hand with their government refusing to acknowledge that they ever did anything in the first place to deserve all these restrictions on them. It's not just the politicians, either; the population at large doesn't know much about the crimes committed by Japanese troops during the war. (But we're veering a bit off-topic here, so I'll leave it at that.)

    Petulant martyr syndrome is the cause of half the wars in the world. So many countries keep intricate account of the wrongs done to them and wipe the wrongs done by them from the history books.

    One of the nice things about being British is to be comfortably in the wrong in every war save WW2. It helps with the potential for denial.

    Eh, we did some stuff there too - just for old time's sake. Maybe the Falklands was OK...?

    The Falklands was pointless grasping at the last shreds of Empire.

    What the hell are you on about? The Falklands was Argentina deciding that because these islands are near us, they are obviously ours and the UK rightfully telling them to piss off.

    Yeah the British obviously had the superior claim because the islands were much more near to them.


    The Argentinian claim to the islands is obviously not super great, but that doesn't mean Badger isn't right that the war for the British was about the Empire. And it is certainly not true that the war was Argentina suddenly deciding the islands were theirs. That is such an ignorant summary of the historical conflict that it seems deliberate. Argentine had to be kicked out before the British established current rule! If we suppose that a history of original control is the relevant factor, the Argentinian claim is probably stronger than that of the British (who weren't even the first to colonize it).

    If we're going to use words like "rightfully" it is probably best to be very clear what we mean by them.

    No, it's snarky but entirely accurate. Any claim to the islands is colonial in nature. But mostly harmless because no one lived there. At the time of the war the Falklands was inhabited by UK subjects of UK descent who had no interest in Argentinian rule and had been in that state for like ... 150 years or so? The Argentinian invasion had zero legitimacy. Like seriously, what possible bullshit excuse can you come up with for it? In what possible way was the UK wrong for kicking the Argentinians out?

    Pretending like the UK was in any way in the wrong here is anti-British revisionist history. Which is hilarious because that basically never happens and it's usually the opposite. There's even an entire thread we had like 5 years ago that's in large part about how stupid the Falklands War revisionist history is: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/156006/the-falkland-islands-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-tell-argentina-to-stfu/p1

    Which would be the more appropriate place to relocate this discussions since the US was not a party to the conflict.

    Shryke, the Argentinians claimed (or whatever) the islands in 1820, when British rule was long gone and there was only a plaque left saying it. And then the UK kicked them out. At that time there were only a couple of people settled there of course, but Argentine was still the (colonial) ruler.

    This is the basis of their claim, coupled with their independence from Spain granting them it. The Falklands war wasn't them deciding that these islands looked nice, it was them reclaiming territory they lost when they were a very young state. You could say that this is no rightfull claim, as I would, but then the UK claim isn't either. But to characterize the conflict as sudden greed vs principled defense, instead of another chapter in the history of a region always contested, is wrong. It is fine to say the UK wasn't in the wrong, but it is dumb to say it was totally in the right. (especially given the debate at the time)

    And that basis is complete bullshit and in actual fact it's just an excuse for some Argentinian chest-thumping because the islands are, like, right there so clearly our claim is stronger even though the British have controlled and had a population on the island for over a century at that point. This is like claiming a british invasion of Virginia would have some legitimacy.

    It is not any more bullshit than any other colonial claim. If the British kicked everyone out of Virginia and put their own settlers there for 100 years I would expect 0% Americans to go "well fair is fair, you guys did kick us out and have now lived there for a while so it's yours.". You can't call bullshit and then pretend that control and establishing a population is actually relevant. That is the basis of the claim!

    like, are you saying that the British have the legit claim because they kept control for a long time?]Is there some formula for determining the point where you have occupied a territory long enough that it is now yours?


    (as I said, the sole (and morally right) reason that the Falklands should be part of the UK at the moment is that the people there want it. but that is also some shit given that they kicked out the previous people living there.) I am not saying Argentine is right, I'm saying I'm sympathetic to their claim given the opposing claims also made by the UK.

    Yes you silly goose, that is in fact one of the ways we decide who owns which parts of the world. We look at who the fuck lives there right now, how long they have lived there and how many there are. IT IS ENCODED INTO INTERNATIONAL LAW! THERE IS PRECEDENT AND EVERYTHING.

    We don't look at random claims from 150 years ago, that where never enforced and where left dormant except for periods when the claimant nation needs to look good domestically.
    We certainly don't accept claims made at gunpoint, without even requesting the International Court or the UN for a judgment.

    Like get off your high goddamn horse. Just cause you don't like the British, doesn't mean they where wrong. Like look up the Svaldbard Treaty, or the Norwegian/Danish dispute over the Ownership of Greenland. They are surprisingly relevant.

    Did you not read the last part of my post?

    i mean, you're totally wrong which should be somewhat obvious given that the Falkland Islands status is still disputed. They aren't officially recognized as part of the UK by most nations, including the US. The most common position is that it should still be negotiated. The correct way to settle territorial disputes is in fact NOT encoded into international law. There is in fact no clear precedent. And even if we would apply the Montevideo Convention to a territorial dispute, the length of time living there and the amount of people living there are not relevant. The only actually established relevant international law bit is, as I mentioned, the right to self determination. The fact that the people there want to be part of the UK is why they should be.


    re the bolded: That is in fact part of the UK claim. They literally abandoned the whole thing for 61 years but argue that they left a plaque saying they owned it.

    Styrofoam Sammich
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    Did you read mine? Or anybody else's? Or did you run off to google something that would give you a leg to stand on?

    the Montevideo convention is an American Convention(as in a continental one). The UK isn't a signatory. Its not even relevant because it only deals with the colonial borders prior to independence.

    The Falklands islands isn't considered a part of the UK, true. But it is considered an Overseas Territory. Something that is recognized by most nations, including the US. Guam for instance is not a part of the US, but an Overseas Territory. Want to claim it?

    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
    shryke
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    Did you read mine? Or anybody else's? Or did you run off to google something that would give you a leg to stand on?

    the Montevideo convention is an American Convention(as in a continental one). The UK isn't a signatory. Its not even relevant because it only deals with the colonial borders prior to independence.

    The Falklands islands isn't considered a part of the UK, true. But it is considered an Overseas Territory. Something that is recognized by most nations, including the US. Guam for instance is not a part of the US, but an Overseas Territory. Want to claim it?

    I mean i wouldn't not support their claim to independence.

    but also, no, the Falklands islands aren't actually recognized. Sovereignity over Overseas Territories gets disputed, Spain still claims Gibraltar should be theirs, but on the islands specifically the US remains neutral. And the UN has put them, and Gibraltar for that matter, on the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Jurisdiction is recognized of course, these places are not lawless. But like Taiwan and other places they are not actually recognized as such.

    like, I brought up the Montevideo convention because it seemed the only thing close to your claims about international law. I know international law. It can be characterized by it covering very little. It certainly doesn't settle territorial disputes in the simplistic matter you suggest, that would be far too sensible and altruistic.

    Guam, American Samoa and the Virgin Islands are also on the list for the record. It's a list of remaining colonies pretty much.

  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    One needs to also factor in that Abe's party refuses to acknowledge any of the atrocities committed by the Japanese during World War II, from keeping it out of history textbooks to complaining about a statue commemorating comfort women in a Chinese-majority neighborhood in California, to badgering the biggest English-language Japanese newspaper to issue this tortured clarification/apology just the other day:

    JFC that is chilling. That's right up there with the worst of Trump's anti-press crap.

    This is why the push for militarization of Japan is so unnerving. Because it's hand-in-hand with their government refusing to acknowledge that they ever did anything in the first place to deserve all these restrictions on them. It's not just the politicians, either; the population at large doesn't know much about the crimes committed by Japanese troops during the war. (But we're veering a bit off-topic here, so I'll leave it at that.)

    Petulant martyr syndrome is the cause of half the wars in the world. So many countries keep intricate account of the wrongs done to them and wipe the wrongs done by them from the history books.

    One of the nice things about being British is to be comfortably in the wrong in every war save WW2. It helps with the potential for denial.

    Eh, we did some stuff there too - just for old time's sake. Maybe the Falklands was OK...?

    The Falklands was pointless grasping at the last shreds of Empire.

    What the hell are you on about? The Falklands was Argentina deciding that because these islands are near us, they are obviously ours and the UK rightfully telling them to piss off.

    Yeah the British obviously had the superior claim because the islands were much more near to them.


    The Argentinian claim to the islands is obviously not super great, but that doesn't mean Badger isn't right that the war for the British was about the Empire. And it is certainly not true that the war was Argentina suddenly deciding the islands were theirs. That is such an ignorant summary of the historical conflict that it seems deliberate. Argentine had to be kicked out before the British established current rule! If we suppose that a history of original control is the relevant factor, the Argentinian claim is probably stronger than that of the British (who weren't even the first to colonize it).

    If we're going to use words like "rightfully" it is probably best to be very clear what we mean by them.

    No, it's snarky but entirely accurate. Any claim to the islands is colonial in nature. But mostly harmless because no one lived there. At the time of the war the Falklands was inhabited by UK subjects of UK descent who had no interest in Argentinian rule and had been in that state for like ... 150 years or so? The Argentinian invasion had zero legitimacy. Like seriously, what possible bullshit excuse can you come up with for it? In what possible way was the UK wrong for kicking the Argentinians out?

    Pretending like the UK was in any way in the wrong here is anti-British revisionist history. Which is hilarious because that basically never happens and it's usually the opposite. There's even an entire thread we had like 5 years ago that's in large part about how stupid the Falklands War revisionist history is: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/156006/the-falkland-islands-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-tell-argentina-to-stfu/p1

    Which would be the more appropriate place to relocate this discussions since the US was not a party to the conflict.

    Shryke, the Argentinians claimed (or whatever) the islands in 1820, when British rule was long gone and there was only a plaque left saying it. And then the UK kicked them out. At that time there were only a couple of people settled there of course, but Argentine was still the (colonial) ruler.

    This is the basis of their claim, coupled with their independence from Spain granting them it. The Falklands war wasn't them deciding that these islands looked nice, it was them reclaiming territory they lost when they were a very young state. You could say that this is no rightfull claim, as I would, but then the UK claim isn't either. But to characterize the conflict as sudden greed vs principled defense, instead of another chapter in the history of a region always contested, is wrong. It is fine to say the UK wasn't in the wrong, but it is dumb to say it was totally in the right. (especially given the debate at the time)

    And that basis is complete bullshit and in actual fact it's just an excuse for some Argentinian chest-thumping because the islands are, like, right there so clearly our claim is stronger even though the British have controlled and had a population on the island for over a century at that point. This is like claiming a british invasion of Virginia would have some legitimacy.

    It is not any more bullshit than any other colonial claim. If the British kicked everyone out of Virginia and put their own settlers there for 100 years I would expect 0% Americans to go "well fair is fair, you guys did kick us out and have now lived there for a while so it's yours.". You can't call bullshit and then pretend that control and establishing a population is actually relevant. That is the basis of the claim!

    like, are you saying that the British have the legit claim because they kept control for a long time? Is there some formula for determining the point where you have occupied a territory long enough that it is now yours?


    (as I said, the sole (and morally right) reason that the Falklands should be part of the UK at the moment is that the people there want it. but that is also some shit given that they kicked out the previous people living there.) I am not saying Argentine is right, I'm saying I'm sympathetic to their claim given the opposing claims also made by the UK.

    Wait, so you are suggesting the British could invade the US east coast and this would be fine?

    no.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    One needs to also factor in that Abe's party refuses to acknowledge any of the atrocities committed by the Japanese during World War II, from keeping it out of history textbooks to complaining about a statue commemorating comfort women in a Chinese-majority neighborhood in California, to badgering the biggest English-language Japanese newspaper to issue this tortured clarification/apology just the other day:

    JFC that is chilling. That's right up there with the worst of Trump's anti-press crap.

    This is why the push for militarization of Japan is so unnerving. Because it's hand-in-hand with their government refusing to acknowledge that they ever did anything in the first place to deserve all these restrictions on them. It's not just the politicians, either; the population at large doesn't know much about the crimes committed by Japanese troops during the war. (But we're veering a bit off-topic here, so I'll leave it at that.)

    Petulant martyr syndrome is the cause of half the wars in the world. So many countries keep intricate account of the wrongs done to them and wipe the wrongs done by them from the history books.

    One of the nice things about being British is to be comfortably in the wrong in every war save WW2. It helps with the potential for denial.

    Eh, we did some stuff there too - just for old time's sake. Maybe the Falklands was OK...?

    The Falklands was pointless grasping at the last shreds of Empire.

    What the hell are you on about? The Falklands was Argentina deciding that because these islands are near us, they are obviously ours and the UK rightfully telling them to piss off.

    Yeah the British obviously had the superior claim because the islands were much more near to them.


    The Argentinian claim to the islands is obviously not super great, but that doesn't mean Badger isn't right that the war for the British was about the Empire. And it is certainly not true that the war was Argentina suddenly deciding the islands were theirs. That is such an ignorant summary of the historical conflict that it seems deliberate. Argentine had to be kicked out before the British established current rule! If we suppose that a history of original control is the relevant factor, the Argentinian claim is probably stronger than that of the British (who weren't even the first to colonize it).

    If we're going to use words like "rightfully" it is probably best to be very clear what we mean by them.

    No, it's snarky but entirely accurate. Any claim to the islands is colonial in nature. But mostly harmless because no one lived there. At the time of the war the Falklands was inhabited by UK subjects of UK descent who had no interest in Argentinian rule and had been in that state for like ... 150 years or so? The Argentinian invasion had zero legitimacy. Like seriously, what possible bullshit excuse can you come up with for it? In what possible way was the UK wrong for kicking the Argentinians out?

    Pretending like the UK was in any way in the wrong here is anti-British revisionist history. Which is hilarious because that basically never happens and it's usually the opposite. There's even an entire thread we had like 5 years ago that's in large part about how stupid the Falklands War revisionist history is: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/156006/the-falkland-islands-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-tell-argentina-to-stfu/p1

    Which would be the more appropriate place to relocate this discussions since the US was not a party to the conflict.

    Shryke, the Argentinians claimed (or whatever) the islands in 1820, when British rule was long gone and there was only a plaque left saying it. And then the UK kicked them out. At that time there were only a couple of people settled there of course, but Argentine was still the (colonial) ruler.

    This is the basis of their claim, coupled with their independence from Spain granting them it. The Falklands war wasn't them deciding that these islands looked nice, it was them reclaiming territory they lost when they were a very young state. You could say that this is no rightfull claim, as I would, but then the UK claim isn't either. But to characterize the conflict as sudden greed vs principled defense, instead of another chapter in the history of a region always contested, is wrong. It is fine to say the UK wasn't in the wrong, but it is dumb to say it was totally in the right. (especially given the debate at the time)

    And that basis is complete bullshit and in actual fact it's just an excuse for some Argentinian chest-thumping because the islands are, like, right there so clearly our claim is stronger even though the British have controlled and had a population on the island for over a century at that point. This is like claiming a british invasion of Virginia would have some legitimacy.

    It is not any more bullshit than any other colonial claim. If the British kicked everyone out of Virginia and put their own settlers there for 100 years I would expect 0% Americans to go "well fair is fair, you guys did kick us out and have now lived there for a while so it's yours.". You can't call bullshit and then pretend that control and establishing a population is actually relevant. That is the basis of the claim!

    like, are you saying that the British have the legit claim because they kept control for a long time? Is there some formula for determining the point where you have occupied a territory long enough that it is now yours?


    (as I said, the sole (and morally right) reason that the Falklands should be part of the UK at the moment is that the people there want it. but that is also some shit given that they kicked out the previous people living there.) I am not saying Argentine is right, I'm saying I'm sympathetic to their claim given the opposing claims also made by the UK.

    Wait, so you are suggesting the British could invade the US east coast and this would be fine?

    no.

    But they used to own it. This is literally the only criteria you've established for the legitimacy of the Argentinian invasion. So why the sudden waffling?

  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    I think it's worth mentioning that all of these semantics that are being trotted out for this round of "Falklands sovereignty discussion round X" were pretty much discussed 6 years ago in this very thread.

    Like, I feel like I could go back 13 pages and just quote things I and others wrote then rather then put in the effort to type out responses and still come out on top.

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
    V1m
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    One needs to also factor in that Abe's party refuses to acknowledge any of the atrocities committed by the Japanese during World War II, from keeping it out of history textbooks to complaining about a statue commemorating comfort women in a Chinese-majority neighborhood in California, to badgering the biggest English-language Japanese newspaper to issue this tortured clarification/apology just the other day:

    JFC that is chilling. That's right up there with the worst of Trump's anti-press crap.

    This is why the push for militarization of Japan is so unnerving. Because it's hand-in-hand with their government refusing to acknowledge that they ever did anything in the first place to deserve all these restrictions on them. It's not just the politicians, either; the population at large doesn't know much about the crimes committed by Japanese troops during the war. (But we're veering a bit off-topic here, so I'll leave it at that.)

    Petulant martyr syndrome is the cause of half the wars in the world. So many countries keep intricate account of the wrongs done to them and wipe the wrongs done by them from the history books.

    One of the nice things about being British is to be comfortably in the wrong in every war save WW2. It helps with the potential for denial.

    Eh, we did some stuff there too - just for old time's sake. Maybe the Falklands was OK...?

    The Falklands was pointless grasping at the last shreds of Empire.

    What the hell are you on about? The Falklands was Argentina deciding that because these islands are near us, they are obviously ours and the UK rightfully telling them to piss off.

    Yeah the British obviously had the superior claim because the islands were much more near to them.


    The Argentinian claim to the islands is obviously not super great, but that doesn't mean Badger isn't right that the war for the British was about the Empire. And it is certainly not true that the war was Argentina suddenly deciding the islands were theirs. That is such an ignorant summary of the historical conflict that it seems deliberate. Argentine had to be kicked out before the British established current rule! If we suppose that a history of original control is the relevant factor, the Argentinian claim is probably stronger than that of the British (who weren't even the first to colonize it).

    If we're going to use words like "rightfully" it is probably best to be very clear what we mean by them.

    No, it's snarky but entirely accurate. Any claim to the islands is colonial in nature. But mostly harmless because no one lived there. At the time of the war the Falklands was inhabited by UK subjects of UK descent who had no interest in Argentinian rule and had been in that state for like ... 150 years or so? The Argentinian invasion had zero legitimacy. Like seriously, what possible bullshit excuse can you come up with for it? In what possible way was the UK wrong for kicking the Argentinians out?

    Pretending like the UK was in any way in the wrong here is anti-British revisionist history. Which is hilarious because that basically never happens and it's usually the opposite. There's even an entire thread we had like 5 years ago that's in large part about how stupid the Falklands War revisionist history is: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/156006/the-falkland-islands-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-tell-argentina-to-stfu/p1

    Which would be the more appropriate place to relocate this discussions since the US was not a party to the conflict.

    Shryke, the Argentinians claimed (or whatever) the islands in 1820, when British rule was long gone and there was only a plaque left saying it. And then the UK kicked them out. At that time there were only a couple of people settled there of course, but Argentine was still the (colonial) ruler.

    This is the basis of their claim, coupled with their independence from Spain granting them it. The Falklands war wasn't them deciding that these islands looked nice, it was them reclaiming territory they lost when they were a very young state. You could say that this is no rightfull claim, as I would, but then the UK claim isn't either. But to characterize the conflict as sudden greed vs principled defense, instead of another chapter in the history of a region always contested, is wrong. It is fine to say the UK wasn't in the wrong, but it is dumb to say it was totally in the right. (especially given the debate at the time)

    And that basis is complete bullshit and in actual fact it's just an excuse for some Argentinian chest-thumping because the islands are, like, right there so clearly our claim is stronger even though the British have controlled and had a population on the island for over a century at that point. This is like claiming a british invasion of Virginia would have some legitimacy.

    It is not any more bullshit than any other colonial claim. If the British kicked everyone out of Virginia and put their own settlers there for 100 years I would expect 0% Americans to go "well fair is fair, you guys did kick us out and have now lived there for a while so it's yours.". You can't call bullshit and then pretend that control and establishing a population is actually relevant. That is the basis of the claim!

    like, are you saying that the British have the legit claim because they kept control for a long time? Is there some formula for determining the point where you have occupied a territory long enough that it is now yours?


    (as I said, the sole (and morally right) reason that the Falklands should be part of the UK at the moment is that the people there want it. but that is also some shit given that they kicked out the previous people living there.) I am not saying Argentine is right, I'm saying I'm sympathetic to their claim given the opposing claims also made by the UK.

    Wait, so you are suggesting the British could invade the US east coast and this would be fine?

    no.

    But they used to own it. This is literally the only criteria you've established for the legitimacy of the Argentinian invasion. So why the sudden waffling?

    I never said the Argentinian invasion was fine. It was obviously wrong, even if war over territory was not itself illegitimate anyway. War is generally not justified.

    My point is that you and others, and the UK, are defending the UK for illegitimate reasons. Because Argentine has equally valid illegitimate reasons for their claim. I am saying that it doesn't matter who was there first. It doesn't matter that you settled more people there. Leaving a plaque doesn't matter. Saying you are now the owner of all of Spain's previous territories in the region doesn't matter. Winning the conflict doesn't matter.

    The reason the British invading the US east coast is wrong, is that the people living there do not want that. Sure they killed everyone who would want that way back, but that doesn't change what should happen now. We can't travel back in time, and should try getting over old grudges. Those don't matter. The (UN recognized) right to self-determination matters.

  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    The claim of the Falklanders to being part of the British commonwealth is that they lived their for 150 years and actually predate the formation of the Argentina.

    Further the islands are 1521 KM away from Argentina; this is well and truly outside of what is accepted as territorial waters (hilariously though, the islands are about the same distance from Chile, so logically they should have about as much claim to the islands).

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
    JuliusPLA
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    One needs to also factor in that Abe's party refuses to acknowledge any of the atrocities committed by the Japanese during World War II, from keeping it out of history textbooks to complaining about a statue commemorating comfort women in a Chinese-majority neighborhood in California, to badgering the biggest English-language Japanese newspaper to issue this tortured clarification/apology just the other day:

    JFC that is chilling. That's right up there with the worst of Trump's anti-press crap.

    This is why the push for militarization of Japan is so unnerving. Because it's hand-in-hand with their government refusing to acknowledge that they ever did anything in the first place to deserve all these restrictions on them. It's not just the politicians, either; the population at large doesn't know much about the crimes committed by Japanese troops during the war. (But we're veering a bit off-topic here, so I'll leave it at that.)

    Petulant martyr syndrome is the cause of half the wars in the world. So many countries keep intricate account of the wrongs done to them and wipe the wrongs done by them from the history books.

    One of the nice things about being British is to be comfortably in the wrong in every war save WW2. It helps with the potential for denial.

    Eh, we did some stuff there too - just for old time's sake. Maybe the Falklands was OK...?

    The Falklands was pointless grasping at the last shreds of Empire.

    What the hell are you on about? The Falklands was Argentina deciding that because these islands are near us, they are obviously ours and the UK rightfully telling them to piss off.

    Yeah the British obviously had the superior claim because the islands were much more near to them.


    The Argentinian claim to the islands is obviously not super great, but that doesn't mean Badger isn't right that the war for the British was about the Empire. And it is certainly not true that the war was Argentina suddenly deciding the islands were theirs. That is such an ignorant summary of the historical conflict that it seems deliberate. Argentine had to be kicked out before the British established current rule! If we suppose that a history of original control is the relevant factor, the Argentinian claim is probably stronger than that of the British (who weren't even the first to colonize it).

    If we're going to use words like "rightfully" it is probably best to be very clear what we mean by them.

    No, it's snarky but entirely accurate. Any claim to the islands is colonial in nature. But mostly harmless because no one lived there. At the time of the war the Falklands was inhabited by UK subjects of UK descent who had no interest in Argentinian rule and had been in that state for like ... 150 years or so? The Argentinian invasion had zero legitimacy. Like seriously, what possible bullshit excuse can you come up with for it? In what possible way was the UK wrong for kicking the Argentinians out?

    Pretending like the UK was in any way in the wrong here is anti-British revisionist history. Which is hilarious because that basically never happens and it's usually the opposite. There's even an entire thread we had like 5 years ago that's in large part about how stupid the Falklands War revisionist history is: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/156006/the-falkland-islands-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-tell-argentina-to-stfu/p1

    Which would be the more appropriate place to relocate this discussions since the US was not a party to the conflict.

    Shryke, the Argentinians claimed (or whatever) the islands in 1820, when British rule was long gone and there was only a plaque left saying it. And then the UK kicked them out. At that time there were only a couple of people settled there of course, but Argentine was still the (colonial) ruler.

    This is the basis of their claim, coupled with their independence from Spain granting them it. The Falklands war wasn't them deciding that these islands looked nice, it was them reclaiming territory they lost when they were a very young state. You could say that this is no rightfull claim, as I would, but then the UK claim isn't either. But to characterize the conflict as sudden greed vs principled defense, instead of another chapter in the history of a region always contested, is wrong. It is fine to say the UK wasn't in the wrong, but it is dumb to say it was totally in the right. (especially given the debate at the time)

    And that basis is complete bullshit and in actual fact it's just an excuse for some Argentinian chest-thumping because the islands are, like, right there so clearly our claim is stronger even though the British have controlled and had a population on the island for over a century at that point. This is like claiming a british invasion of Virginia would have some legitimacy.

    It is not any more bullshit than any other colonial claim. If the British kicked everyone out of Virginia and put their own settlers there for 100 years I would expect 0% Americans to go "well fair is fair, you guys did kick us out and have now lived there for a while so it's yours.". You can't call bullshit and then pretend that control and establishing a population is actually relevant. That is the basis of the claim!

    like, are you saying that the British have the legit claim because they kept control for a long time? Is there some formula for determining the point where you have occupied a territory long enough that it is now yours?


    (as I said, the sole (and morally right) reason that the Falklands should be part of the UK at the moment is that the people there want it. but that is also some shit given that they kicked out the previous people living there.) I am not saying Argentine is right, I'm saying I'm sympathetic to their claim given the opposing claims also made by the UK.

    Wait, so you are suggesting the British could invade the US east coast and this would be fine?

    no.

    But they used to own it. This is literally the only criteria you've established for the legitimacy of the Argentinian invasion. So why the sudden waffling?

    I never said the Argentinian invasion was fine. It was obviously wrong, even if war over territory was not itself illegitimate anyway. War is generally not justified.

    My point is that you and others, and the UK, are defending the UK for illegitimate reasons. Because Argentine has equally valid illegitimate reasons for their claim. I am saying that it doesn't matter who was there first. It doesn't matter that you settled more people there. Leaving a plaque doesn't matter. Saying you are now the owner of all of Spain's previous territories in the region doesn't matter. Winning the conflict doesn't matter.

    The reason the British invading the US east coast is wrong, is that the people living there do not want that. Sure they killed everyone who would want that way back, but that doesn't change what should happen now. We can't travel back in time, and should try getting over old grudges. Those don't matter. The (UN recognized) right to self-determination matters.

    No they aren't. Despite your refusal to acknowledge the basic facts of the matter, it remains true that the islands were UK territory inhabited by subjects of the UK government who very much wanted to remain part of the UK's territories. This is the opposite of illegitimate.

    Argentina had no foot to stand on invading and the UK was not just within their rights to kick them out but essentially obligated by their responsibility to the UK subjects living there.

    dispatch.oKamar
  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User, Moderator mod
    do not necro six year old threads to bark at each other from obviously entrenched positions

    Geth, close the thread

  • GethGeth Legion Perseus VeilRegistered User, Moderator, Penny Arcade Staff, Vanilla Staff vanilla
    Affirmative So It Goes. Closing thread...

This discussion has been closed.