I'm pretty sure the uk is a bit more worker friendly than the us
While I generally like to point out that Britain is behind the US in inequality, that's probably correct (I'm pretty sure it's all education system, but it's always good to keep in mind that "be more like Europe" isn't always great advice). On immigration and immigrant rights, I'd probably say the US has simply stayed a bit more up to date due to more immigration, especially when you consider that the US doesn't have any fast track agreements that I know of.
I'm pretty sure the uk is a bit more worker friendly than the us
While I generally like to point out that Britain is behind the US in inequality, that's probably correct (I'm pretty sure it's all education system, but it's always good to keep in mind that "be more like Europe" isn't always great advice). On immigration and immigrant rights, I'd probably say the US has simply stayed a bit more up to date due to more immigration, especially when you consider that the US doesn't have any fast track agreements that I know of.
No
Arizona
QED
More seriously, US immigration policy is a mess. For all intents and purposes it might as well not exist, except for the people willing to jump through the hoops cause of skilled jobs/student visas. Which generally aren't drains on society or security threats.
I'm pretty sure the uk is a bit more worker friendly than the us
While I generally like to point out that Britain is behind the US in inequality, that's probably correct (I'm pretty sure it's all education system, but it's always good to keep in mind that "be more like Europe" isn't always great advice). On immigration and immigrant rights, I'd probably say the US has simply stayed a bit more up to date due to more immigration, especially when you consider that the US doesn't have any fast track agreements that I know of.
No
Arizona
QED
More seriously, US immigration policy is a mess. For all intents and purposes it might as well not exist, except for the people willing to jump through the hoops cause of skilled jobs/student visas. Which generally aren't drains on society or security threats.
That's more of a problem with there being greater stress on the system, so the policy issues cause greater trouble. The UK has less immigration and very little illegal immigration, so it can get away with an outdated system.
0
Options
lu tzeSweeping the monestary steps.Registered Userregular
While I generally like to point out that Britain is behind the US in inequality, that's probably correct (I'm pretty sure it's all education system, but it's always good to keep in mind that "be more like Europe" isn't always great advice).
Actually Britain and the U.S. have comparable (fucking shameful) levels of social mobility.
The American Dream is a myth... try the Canadian one, or the Norwegian one instead.
Well I gotta go. I'll make a longer post later. Basically I just don't think the British have some inherent right to an island that they colonized when they were a superpower and Argentina was still fighting for independence.
So I guess we'll be pulling all our stuff out of the Sonora, Texas, and California and giving it back to Mexico then.
Alright let's do this.
Yes, there is a certain merit in simply maintaining the status quo for international relations and national borders- any change tends to bring chaos and disruption. That does not mean we should never change national borders- letting Ireland become an independent nation rather than a conquered province of Britain was a good change for example. It's important to weigh injustice with practicality- how much damage will be done by changing the status quo rather than just accepting it? Or as Thomas Jefferson put it: "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
I do think it's important for Americans to acknowledge that all of the US is basically conquered territory, and that conquering that territory involved a massive holocaust of the native people. However, "giving it back" isn't an option. For one thing, Mexico never had any moral claim to it either- it belonged to the native tribes who lived there, and most of them have been completely destroyed. Even if we could do so, giving up the land of the US would involve such a massive disruption that the damage caused would be incalculable. All we can do is acknowledge the wrongs done in the past, and try to avoid repeating them.
In the case of the Falklands, the disruption would not be nearly so extreme. We're talking about some very tiny islands here, with a population of only 3,000 people! Not that we should ignore the wishes of 3,000 people of course, but it's a small enough scale that changing ownership of the islands is actually practical.
However, I don't think that the moral situation is anywhere close to that of the conquered US land either. As everyone has already said, Britain didn't conquer this land from anyone, and certainly not from the nation of Argentina which didn't even exist when the islands were first settled. The islanders, certainly, have done nothing wrong and they must be allowed to keep living there as they wish.
That being said, I do think Argentina has some claim to the island (not an ironclad claim, just... some claim). Most of all simple geography- the islands are much closer to Argentina than to Britain. The islands are completely dependent on trade, and it would be more natural for them to trade with Argentina than with the UK. It would also be much easier for Argentina to defend them, as proven by the fact that the UK wasn't actually able to defend them during the Falklands war (they had to abandon them and then retake them later, and it wasn't an easy mission). If Argentinians were allowed to freely emigrate there, they would probably quickly become the majority on the islands. There is also consensus that the islands are part of southern South America, which formerly belonged to Spain, and since Argentina inherited all the rest of that land from Spain it would be reasonable for them to have inherited the Falkland Islands as well.
More realistically, neither nation really cares about the history of the islands. They're both using them to rile up nationalism, and they both want the oil in the sea around the islands. That doesn't strike me as a particularly strong moral claim by either side.
So I'm definitely not suggesting that Argentina should be allowed to take over the islands and expel all the people currently living there. I'm just arguing that it's not a simple matter of "Britain right, Argentina wrong" and that some sort of compromise should be possible. For example, Britain could allow Argentina to share in the defense of the islands and allow some Argentinians to emigrate there. Or they could offer Argentina a small amount of the oil revenue- surely that would be cheaper than building an entire aircraft carrier just to defend the islands?
Pi-r8 on
0
Options
lu tzeSweeping the monestary steps.Registered Userregular
However, I don't think that the moral situation is anywhere close to that of the conquered US land either. As everyone has already said, Britain didn't conquer this land from anyone, and certainly not from the nation of Argentina which didn't even exist when the islands were first settled. The islanders, certainly, have done nothing wrong and they must be allowed to keep living there as they wish.
That being said, I do think Argentina has some claim to the island (not an ironclad claim, just... some claim). Most of all simple geography- the islands are much closer to Argentina than to Britain. The islands are completely dependent on trade, and it would be more natural for them to trade with Argentina than with the UK. It would also be much easier for Argentina to defend them, as proven by the fact that the UK wasn't actually able to defend them during the Falklands war (they had to abandon them and then retake them later, and it wasn't an easy mission). If Argentinians were allowed to freely emigrate there, they would probably quickly become the majority on the islands.
More realistically, neither nation really cares about the history of the islands. They're both using them to rile up nationalism, and they both want the oil in the sea around the islands. That doesn't strike me as a particularly strong moral claim by either side.
So I'm definitely not suggesting that Argentina should be allowed to take over the islands and expel all the people currently living there. I'm just arguing that it's not a simple matter of "Britain right, Argentina wrong" and that some sort of compromise should be possible. For example, Britain could allow Argentina to share in the defense of the islands and allow some Argentinians to emigrate there. Or they could offer Argentina a small amount of the oil revenue- surely that would be cheaper than building an entire aircraft carrier just to defend the islands?
This is all very reasonable.
But the thing is, Argentina didn't want to be reasonable about it.
Britain offered to put the issue to the international courts. Argentina refused. Britain was up for negotiating sovereignty, as long as the rights of the islanders were considered. Argentina refused.
Instead, they invaded, and got a lot of people killed. Fuck them.
World's best janitor
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Well I gotta go. I'll make a longer post later. Basically I just don't think the British have some inherent right to an island that they colonized when they were a superpower and Argentina was still fighting for independence.
So I guess we'll be pulling all our stuff out of the Sonora, Texas, and California and giving it back to Mexico then.
Alright let's do this.
Yes, there is a certain merit in simply maintaining the status quo for international relations and national borders- any change tends to bring chaos and disruption. That does not mean we should never change national borders- letting Ireland become an independent nation rather than a conquered province of Britain was a good change for example. It's important to weigh injustice with practicality- how much damage will be done by changing the status quo rather than just accepting it? Or as Thomas Jefferson put it: "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
I do think it's important for Americans to acknowledge that all of the US is basically conquered territory, and that conquering that territory involved a massive holocaust of the native people. However, "giving it back" isn't an option. For one thing, Mexico never had any moral claim to it either- it belonged to the native tribes who lived there, and most of them have been completely destroyed. Even if we could do so, giving up the land of the US would involve such a massive disruption that the damage caused would be incalculable. All we can do is acknowledge the wrongs done in the past, and try to avoid repeating them.
In the case of the Falklands, the disruption would not be nearly so extreme. We're talking about some very tiny islands here, with a population of only 3,000 people! Not that we should ignore the wishes of 3,000 people of course, but it's a small enough scale that changing ownership of the islands is actually practical.
However, I don't think that the moral situation is anywhere close to that of the conquered US land either. As everyone has already said, Britain didn't conquer this land from anyone, and certainly not from the nation of Argentina which didn't even exist when the islands were first settled. The islanders, certainly, have done nothing wrong and they must be allowed to keep living there as they wish.
That being said, I do think Argentina has some claim to the island (not an ironclad claim, just... some claim). Most of all simple geography- the islands are much closer to Argentina than to Britain. The islands are completely dependent on trade, and it would be more natural for them to trade with Argentina than with the UK. It would also be much easier for Argentina to defend them, as proven by the fact that the UK wasn't actually able to defend them during the Falklands war (they had to abandon them and then retake them later, and it wasn't an easy mission). If Argentinians were allowed to freely emigrate there, they would probably quickly become the majority on the islands.
More realistically, neither nation really cares about the history of the islands. They're both using them to rile up nationalism, and they both want the oil in the sea around the islands. That doesn't strike me as a particularly strong moral claim by either side.
So I'm definitely not suggesting that Argentina should be allowed to take over the islands and expel all the people currently living there. I'm just arguing that it's not a simple matter of "Britain right, Argentina wrong" and that some sort of compromise should be possible. For example, Britain could allow Argentina to share in the defense of the islands and allow some Argentinians to emigrate there. Or they could offer Argentina a small amount of the oil revenue- surely that would be cheaper than building an entire aircraft carrier just to defend the islands?
Spoilered for length.
Geography is a rather poor marker for who should have control of a territory. Shall we let China take over defense of Guam?
The only question that matters is "Do the Falklanders wish to remain British". The answer to that question is yes.
Cameron certainly hasn't played politics with this as much as he could. It's gotten maybe one mention in the House of Commons during PMQs. Whereas Kirchner has imposed trade restrictions on the islands and started whining to the UN about the issue.
I reject the idea that Argentina has any claim on the islands since Argentina has never owned them. Ever. They've had continuous British habitation and peaceful ownership since 1833 (except, of course, in 1982).
Why should the UK make any concessions to Argentina? Capitulation?
Argentina is as much "Native American" as the US is. The only difference is they were colonized by Spain instead of Britain. None of our countries are the result of anything other than colonization and murder of indigenous peoples. But the Falklands is the least colonized colony. No one died for Britain to settle those islands, not until the Fascist dictatorship of Galtieri invaded the islands without cause or provocation.
Now, I'm not calling Kirchner a fascist or a dictator. I am calling her an imperialist thug, though. The UK didn't bring this up, Argentina did.
The UK says that the Falklanders have the right of all people to determine their own identity and future. The Argentinians say that the Falklanders don't get an opinion on the matter.
Few things are Good/Bad in this world, I'll agree, but this one gets damn close.
However, I don't think that the moral situation is anywhere close to that of the conquered US land either. As everyone has already said, Britain didn't conquer this land from anyone, and certainly not from the nation of Argentina which didn't even exist when the islands were first settled. The islanders, certainly, have done nothing wrong and they must be allowed to keep living there as they wish.
That being said, I do think Argentina has some claim to the island (not an ironclad claim, just... some claim). Most of all simple geography- the islands are much closer to Argentina than to Britain. The islands are completely dependent on trade, and it would be more natural for them to trade with Argentina than with the UK. It would also be much easier for Argentina to defend them, as proven by the fact that the UK wasn't actually able to defend them during the Falklands war (they had to abandon them and then retake them later, and it wasn't an easy mission). If Argentinians were allowed to freely emigrate there, they would probably quickly become the majority on the islands.
More realistically, neither nation really cares about the history of the islands. They're both using them to rile up nationalism, and they both want the oil in the sea around the islands. That doesn't strike me as a particularly strong moral claim by either side.
So I'm definitely not suggesting that Argentina should be allowed to take over the islands and expel all the people currently living there. I'm just arguing that it's not a simple matter of "Britain right, Argentina wrong" and that some sort of compromise should be possible. For example, Britain could allow Argentina to share in the defense of the islands and allow some Argentinians to emigrate there. Or they could offer Argentina a small amount of the oil revenue- surely that would be cheaper than building an entire aircraft carrier just to defend the islands?
This is all very reasonable.
But the thing is, Argentina didn't want to be reasonable about it.
Britain offered to put the issue to the international courts. Argentina refused. Britain was up for negotiating sovereignty, as long as the rights of the islanders were considered. Argentina refused.
Instead, they invaded, and got a lot of people killed. Fuck them.
Yeah that was... a terrible decision. I can't believe so many people got killed over such tiny islands.
I dunno, maybe it's because it happened before I was born, but I feel like the Falkland war is almost as much "ancient history" as the original settling, and both nations would do better to just move past it and find a workable compromise right now.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
However, I don't think that the moral situation is anywhere close to that of the conquered US land either. As everyone has already said, Britain didn't conquer this land from anyone, and certainly not from the nation of Argentina which didn't even exist when the islands were first settled. The islanders, certainly, have done nothing wrong and they must be allowed to keep living there as they wish.
That being said, I do think Argentina has some claim to the island (not an ironclad claim, just... some claim). Most of all simple geography- the islands are much closer to Argentina than to Britain. The islands are completely dependent on trade, and it would be more natural for them to trade with Argentina than with the UK. It would also be much easier for Argentina to defend them, as proven by the fact that the UK wasn't actually able to defend them during the Falklands war (they had to abandon them and then retake them later, and it wasn't an easy mission). If Argentinians were allowed to freely emigrate there, they would probably quickly become the majority on the islands.
More realistically, neither nation really cares about the history of the islands. They're both using them to rile up nationalism, and they both want the oil in the sea around the islands. That doesn't strike me as a particularly strong moral claim by either side.
So I'm definitely not suggesting that Argentina should be allowed to take over the islands and expel all the people currently living there. I'm just arguing that it's not a simple matter of "Britain right, Argentina wrong" and that some sort of compromise should be possible. For example, Britain could allow Argentina to share in the defense of the islands and allow some Argentinians to emigrate there. Or they could offer Argentina a small amount of the oil revenue- surely that would be cheaper than building an entire aircraft carrier just to defend the islands?
This is all very reasonable.
But the thing is, Argentina didn't want to be reasonable about it.
Britain offered to put the issue to the international courts. Argentina refused. Britain was up for negotiating sovereignty, as long as the rights of the islanders were considered. Argentina refused.
Instead, they invaded, and got a lot of people killed. Fuck them.
Yeah that was... a terrible decision. I can't believe so many people got killed over such tiny islands.
I dunno, maybe it's because it happened before I was born, but I feel like the Falkland war is almost as much "ancient history" as the original settling, and both nations would do better to just move past it and find a workable compromise right now.
30 years? There are still plenty of people who fought in that war alive today. There are still land mines going off on the Falklands. Say you were 18, fresh in the service, in 1982, you'd be 48 now. That's hardly ancient history.
There's no need for a "workable compromise". The workable compromise is Argentina backs the fuck off and respects the sovereignty of the Falkanders.
Making a claim and rattling sabers doesn't mean you should get anything you want.
I don't want to make this a Godwin, but come on.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Let's take another view at this, let's say that Russia decided that it got ripped off by Seward's folly and started demanding concessions on Alaskan oil and territory. How would you feel then?
I'm a native Briton (albeit now an American), but, all patriotic jingoism aside, I believe the Argentinian claim to the Falklands is objectively indefensible, especially their charges that it constitutes colonial/imperialist oppression.
There has never been a significant Argentine population on the islands. The current population has lived there for nearly 200 years. It is not remotely comparable to, say, British India or the Cape or British Honduras, in which the natives who lived there for centuries were subjugated or replaced by alien invaders - there have never been any native Falklanders except for the people who currently live there. The only "Imperialism" would be forcing these natives to accept Latin American rule. Argentina's claims to the Falklands are founded on nothing but material greed, and it would be a moral tragedy if they were upheld.
Edit: re: Arguments to Geographic Proximity: Bermuda's closer to America than Britain, should we hand it over to the United States?
Moreover, a Latin American government accusing another country of colonialism in Latin America is pitiably ironic, unless they also support returning Peru to the Quechua.
Well I gotta go. I'll make a longer post later. Basically I just don't think the British have some inherent right to an island that they colonized when they were a superpower and Argentina was still fighting for independence.
So I guess we'll be pulling all our stuff out of the Sonora, Texas, and California and giving it back to Mexico then.
Alright let's do this.
Yes, there is a certain merit in simply maintaining the status quo for international relations and national borders- any change tends to bring chaos and disruption. That does not mean we should never change national borders- letting Ireland become an independent nation rather than a conquered province of Britain was a good change for example. It's important to weigh injustice with practicality- how much damage will be done by changing the status quo rather than just accepting it? Or as Thomas Jefferson put it: "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
I do think it's important for Americans to acknowledge that all of the US is basically conquered territory, and that conquering that territory involved a massive holocaust of the native people. However, "giving it back" isn't an option. For one thing, Mexico never had any moral claim to it either- it belonged to the native tribes who lived there, and most of them have been completely destroyed. Even if we could do so, giving up the land of the US would involve such a massive disruption that the damage caused would be incalculable. All we can do is acknowledge the wrongs done in the past, and try to avoid repeating them.
In the case of the Falklands, the disruption would not be nearly so extreme. We're talking about some very tiny islands here, with a population of only 3,000 people! Not that we should ignore the wishes of 3,000 people of course, but it's a small enough scale that changing ownership of the islands is actually practical.
However, I don't think that the moral situation is anywhere close to that of the conquered US land either. As everyone has already said, Britain didn't conquer this land from anyone, and certainly not from the nation of Argentina which didn't even exist when the islands were first settled. The islanders, certainly, have done nothing wrong and they must be allowed to keep living there as they wish.
That being said, I do think Argentina has some claim to the island (not an ironclad claim, just... some claim). Most of all simple geography- the islands are much closer to Argentina than to Britain. The islands are completely dependent on trade, and it would be more natural for them to trade with Argentina than with the UK. It would also be much easier for Argentina to defend them, as proven by the fact that the UK wasn't actually able to defend them during the Falklands war (they had to abandon them and then retake them later, and it wasn't an easy mission). If Argentinians were allowed to freely emigrate there, they would probably quickly become the majority on the islands.
More realistically, neither nation really cares about the history of the islands. They're both using them to rile up nationalism, and they both want the oil in the sea around the islands. That doesn't strike me as a particularly strong moral claim by either side.
So I'm definitely not suggesting that Argentina should be allowed to take over the islands and expel all the people currently living there. I'm just arguing that it's not a simple matter of "Britain right, Argentina wrong" and that some sort of compromise should be possible. For example, Britain could allow Argentina to share in the defense of the islands and allow some Argentinians to emigrate there. Or they could offer Argentina a small amount of the oil revenue- surely that would be cheaper than building an entire aircraft carrier just to defend the islands?
Spoilered for length.
Geography is a rather poor marker for who should have control of a territory. Shall we let China take over defense of Guam?
Not really the same, since Guam is far away from both nations. Taiwan would be a closer comparison- should we send in the entire US navy to stop China from taking over Taiwan?
The only question that matters is "Do the Falklanders wish to remain British". The answer to that question is yes.
Except that only reason the Falklanders all want that is because only Brits are allowed to settle on the islands. If Argentina controlled the islands, pretty soon all the Falklanders would want to remain Argentinean.
Cameron certainly hasn't played politics with this as much as he could. It's gotten maybe one mention in the House of Commons during PMQs. Whereas Kirchner has imposed trade restrictions on the islands and started whining to the UN about the issue.
Oh I agree, Kirchner has handled the situation horribly. Still I can understand why the average Argentinian would want them so strongly. And I think the Falkland War was probably the main reason for Britain building it's new carriers, so that would be an example of playing politics over the issue. It's ridiculous to build a billion-dollar carrier over these tiny little islands. It would be nice to see the nations at least sit down and discuss it rationally at the UN, rather than having Britain completely ignore Argentina's claim.
[/quote]
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Well I gotta go. I'll make a longer post later. Basically I just don't think the British have some inherent right to an island that they colonized when they were a superpower and Argentina was still fighting for independence.
So I guess we'll be pulling all our stuff out of the Sonora, Texas, and California and giving it back to Mexico then.
Alright let's do this.
Yes, there is a certain merit in simply maintaining the status quo for international relations and national borders- any change tends to bring chaos and disruption. That does not mean we should never change national borders- letting Ireland become an independent nation rather than a conquered province of Britain was a good change for example. It's important to weigh injustice with practicality- how much damage will be done by changing the status quo rather than just accepting it? Or as Thomas Jefferson put it: "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
I do think it's important for Americans to acknowledge that all of the US is basically conquered territory, and that conquering that territory involved a massive holocaust of the native people. However, "giving it back" isn't an option. For one thing, Mexico never had any moral claim to it either- it belonged to the native tribes who lived there, and most of them have been completely destroyed. Even if we could do so, giving up the land of the US would involve such a massive disruption that the damage caused would be incalculable. All we can do is acknowledge the wrongs done in the past, and try to avoid repeating them.
In the case of the Falklands, the disruption would not be nearly so extreme. We're talking about some very tiny islands here, with a population of only 3,000 people! Not that we should ignore the wishes of 3,000 people of course, but it's a small enough scale that changing ownership of the islands is actually practical.
However, I don't think that the moral situation is anywhere close to that of the conquered US land either. As everyone has already said, Britain didn't conquer this land from anyone, and certainly not from the nation of Argentina which didn't even exist when the islands were first settled. The islanders, certainly, have done nothing wrong and they must be allowed to keep living there as they wish.
That being said, I do think Argentina has some claim to the island (not an ironclad claim, just... some claim). Most of all simple geography- the islands are much closer to Argentina than to Britain. The islands are completely dependent on trade, and it would be more natural for them to trade with Argentina than with the UK. It would also be much easier for Argentina to defend them, as proven by the fact that the UK wasn't actually able to defend them during the Falklands war (they had to abandon them and then retake them later, and it wasn't an easy mission). If Argentinians were allowed to freely emigrate there, they would probably quickly become the majority on the islands.
More realistically, neither nation really cares about the history of the islands. They're both using them to rile up nationalism, and they both want the oil in the sea around the islands. That doesn't strike me as a particularly strong moral claim by either side.
So I'm definitely not suggesting that Argentina should be allowed to take over the islands and expel all the people currently living there. I'm just arguing that it's not a simple matter of "Britain right, Argentina wrong" and that some sort of compromise should be possible. For example, Britain could allow Argentina to share in the defense of the islands and allow some Argentinians to emigrate there. Or they could offer Argentina a small amount of the oil revenue- surely that would be cheaper than building an entire aircraft carrier just to defend the islands?
Spoilered for length.
Geography is a rather poor marker for who should have control of a territory. Shall we let China take over defense of Guam?
Not really the same, since Guam is far away from both nations. Taiwan would be a closer comparison- should we send in the entire US navy to stop China from taking over Taiwan?
The only question that matters is "Do the Falklanders wish to remain British". The answer to that question is yes.
Except that only reason the Falklanders all want that is because only Brits are allowed to settle on the islands. If Argentina controlled the islands, pretty soon all the Falklanders would want to remain Argentinean.
Cameron certainly hasn't played politics with this as much as he could. It's gotten maybe one mention in the House of Commons during PMQs. Whereas Kirchner has imposed trade restrictions on the islands and started whining to the UN about the issue.
Oh I agree, Kirchner has handled the situation horribly. Still I can understand why the average Argentinian would want them so strongly. And I think the Falkland War was probably the main reason for Britain building it's new carriers, so that would be an example of playing politics over the issue. It's ridiculous to build a billion-dollar carrier over these tiny little islands. It would be nice to see the nations at least sit down and discuss it rationally at the UN, rather than having Britain completely ignore Argentina's claim.
There's nothing to examine. Britain tried playing nice last time and it cost them 258 lives (including 3 civilians).
Why should the British open their borders to an openly hostile nation?
All countries are allowed to set up immigration checks. This is just grasping at straws. Should we let Cuba vote in Florida elections?
Also, Taiwan doesn't want to be Chinese and and attack on Taiwan would be the opening salvo of WW3. (Also Taiwan's a worse example than the Alaska one I presented earlier)
As a westerner, the highest, holiest value I hold is the belief that people have the right to make up their own minds.
The Falklanders have a right to full use of their territory and the resources therein.
Well I gotta go. I'll make a longer post later. Basically I just don't think the British have some inherent right to an island that they colonized when they were a superpower and Argentina was still fighting for independence.
So I guess we'll be pulling all our stuff out of the Sonora, Texas, and California and giving it back to Mexico then.
Alright let's do this.
Yes, there is a certain merit in simply maintaining the status quo for international relations and national borders- any change tends to bring chaos and disruption. That does not mean we should never change national borders- letting Ireland become an independent nation rather than a conquered province of Britain was a good change for example. It's important to weigh injustice with practicality- how much damage will be done by changing the status quo rather than just accepting it? Or as Thomas Jefferson put it: "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
I do think it's important for Americans to acknowledge that all of the US is basically conquered territory, and that conquering that territory involved a massive holocaust of the native people. However, "giving it back" isn't an option. For one thing, Mexico never had any moral claim to it either- it belonged to the native tribes who lived there, and most of them have been completely destroyed. Even if we could do so, giving up the land of the US would involve such a massive disruption that the damage caused would be incalculable. All we can do is acknowledge the wrongs done in the past, and try to avoid repeating them.
In the case of the Falklands, the disruption would not be nearly so extreme. We're talking about some very tiny islands here, with a population of only 3,000 people! Not that we should ignore the wishes of 3,000 people of course, but it's a small enough scale that changing ownership of the islands is actually practical.
However, I don't think that the moral situation is anywhere close to that of the conquered US land either. As everyone has already said, Britain didn't conquer this land from anyone, and certainly not from the nation of Argentina which didn't even exist when the islands were first settled. The islanders, certainly, have done nothing wrong and they must be allowed to keep living there as they wish.
That being said, I do think Argentina has some claim to the island (not an ironclad claim, just... some claim). Most of all simple geography- the islands are much closer to Argentina than to Britain. The islands are completely dependent on trade, and it would be more natural for them to trade with Argentina than with the UK. It would also be much easier for Argentina to defend them, as proven by the fact that the UK wasn't actually able to defend them during the Falklands war (they had to abandon them and then retake them later, and it wasn't an easy mission). If Argentinians were allowed to freely emigrate there, they would probably quickly become the majority on the islands.
More realistically, neither nation really cares about the history of the islands. They're both using them to rile up nationalism, and they both want the oil in the sea around the islands. That doesn't strike me as a particularly strong moral claim by either side.
So I'm definitely not suggesting that Argentina should be allowed to take over the islands and expel all the people currently living there. I'm just arguing that it's not a simple matter of "Britain right, Argentina wrong" and that some sort of compromise should be possible. For example, Britain could allow Argentina to share in the defense of the islands and allow some Argentinians to emigrate there. Or they could offer Argentina a small amount of the oil revenue- surely that would be cheaper than building an entire aircraft carrier just to defend the islands?
Spoilered for length.
Geography is a rather poor marker for who should have control of a territory. Shall we let China take over defense of Guam?
Not really the same, since Guam is far away from both nations. Taiwan would be a closer comparison- should we send in the entire US navy to stop China from taking over Taiwan?
The only question that matters is "Do the Falklanders wish to remain British". The answer to that question is yes.
Except that only reason the Falklanders all want that is because only Brits are allowed to settle on the islands. If Argentina controlled the islands, pretty soon all the Falklanders would want to remain Argentinean.
Cameron certainly hasn't played politics with this as much as he could. It's gotten maybe one mention in the House of Commons during PMQs. Whereas Kirchner has imposed trade restrictions on the islands and started whining to the UN about the issue.
Oh I agree, Kirchner has handled the situation horribly. Still I can understand why the average Argentinian would want them so strongly. And I think the Falkland War was probably the main reason for Britain building it's new carriers, so that would be an example of playing politics over the issue. It's ridiculous to build a billion-dollar carrier over these tiny little islands. It would be nice to see the nations at least sit down and discuss it rationally at the UN, rather than having Britain completely ignore Argentina's claim.
There's nothing to examine. Britain tried playing nice last time and it cost them 258 lives (including 3 civilians).
Why should the British open their borders to an openly hostile nation?
All countries are allowed to set up immigration checks. This is just grasping at straws. Should we let Cuba vote in Florida elections?
Also, Taiwan doesn't want to be Chinese and and attack on Taiwan would be the opening salvo of WW3. (Also Taiwan's a worse example than the Alaska one I presented earlier)
As a westerner, the highest, holiest value I hold is the belief that people have the right to make up their own minds.
The Falklanders have a right to full use of their territory and the resources therein.
Um how did Britain "play nice" last time? They made a full scale counter-attack after Argentina invaded the islands. I agree they were right to do so, and that Argentina never should have invaded in the first place, but I would like to see them try and negotiate to avoid another such war rather than just going straight to the military option.
For immigration... i don't know. That's a thorny question. I would just say that size and geography matters a lot. (it's also odd to use Cuba as an example since the US freely welcomes Cuban immigrants to Florida) I brought up Taiwan because, with it's size and relative location, it's inevitably becoming part of China. In the absence of immigration barriers, I think the Falkland islands would naturally become part of Argentina.
I do agree of course that, no matter what happens, the people currently living on the islands should be allowed to continue living there as they are. I'm just not convinced that they have the right to forbid other people from living there, or from using the sea around the islands. Especially since, according to Wikipedia, the islands are currently experiencing a labor shortage and could benefit from having more workers.
For immigration... i don't know. That's a thorny question. I would just say that size and geography matters a lot. (it's also odd to use Cuba as an example since the US freely welcomes Cuban immigrants to Florida) I brought up Taiwan because, with it's size and relative location, it's inevitably becoming part of China. In the absence of immigration barriers, I think the Falkland islands would naturally become part of Argentina.
Taiwan has at multiple times been part of China, consists mainly of people of Chinese ancestry, and does not consist almost entirely of American citizens. The Falklands has never been part of Argentina, contains almost no one of Argentinean descent, and consists almost entirely of British citizens. These are terrible, terrible comparisons.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Man, what? We don't freely welcome anything from Cuba. Do you mean wet foot, dry foot? Cause if so, ha good one.
I had read somewhere that the Brits tried peaceful stuff before the war, but I can't find the article so I'll retract that claim.
There's a thing called international waters where anyone can do anything they want. In territorial waters, not so much. This is an ancient right of the sea.
0
Options
lu tzeSweeping the monestary steps.Registered Userregular
Um how did Britain "play nice" last time? They made a full scale counter-attack after Argentina invaded the islands. I agree they were right to do so, and that Argentina never should have invaded in the first place, but I would like to see them try and negotiate to avoid another such war rather than just going straight to the military option.
Are you trolling?
Britain was at the negotiating table right up to 1981.
We have a right to self defence, and those islanders have the right to self determination.
The only way there will be another war, is if Argentina decides there'll be a war... Just like last time.
For immigration... i don't know. That's a thorny question. I would just say that size and geography matters a lot. (it's also odd to use Cuba as an example since the US freely welcomes Cuban immigrants to Florida) I brought up Taiwan because, with it's size and relative location, it's inevitably becoming part of China. In the absence of immigration barriers, I think the Falkland islands would naturally become part of Argentina.
Taiwan has at multiple times been part of China, consists mainly of people of Chinese ancestry, and does not consist almost entirely of American citizens. The Falklands has never been part of Argentina, contains almost no one of Argentinean descent, and consists almost entirely of British citizens. These are terrible, terrible comparisons.
I know it's not the same, it's just all I could think of because I can't think of anything that's exactly comparable. I don't know why you're ignoring the simple fact that it's much, much closer to Argentina than it is to Britain.
Man, what? We don't freely welcome anything from Cuba. Do you mean wet foot, dry foot? Cause if so, ha good one.
I had read somewhere that the Brits tried peaceful stuff before the war, but I can't find the article so I'll retract that claim.
There's a thing called international waters where anyone can do anything they want. In territorial waters, not so much. This is an ancient right of the sea.
I thought it was official US policy that anyone who fled Cuba was allowed to stay here. Is that not the case?
I'm sure they "tried peaceful stuff" but... how hard did they try? Did they ever offer any sort of concessions, or was it just "if you invade our island then I'm giving you fair warning that we're going to kill you"?
Um how did Britain "play nice" last time? They made a full scale counter-attack after Argentina invaded the islands. I agree they were right to do so, and that Argentina never should have invaded in the first place, but I would like to see them try and negotiate to avoid another such war rather than just going straight to the military option.
Are you trolling?
Britain was at the negotiating table right up to 1981.
We have a right to self defence, and those islanders have the right to self determination.
The only way there will be another war, is if Argentina decides there'll be a war... Just like last time.
Um no... if I was trolling I would say something like "Brits still can't get over losing their Empire so they have to make do with bombing banana republics to defend their worthless sheep islands while Americans rule the world".
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Man, what? We don't freely welcome anything from Cuba. Do you mean wet foot, dry foot? Cause if so, ha good one.
I had read somewhere that the Brits tried peaceful stuff before the war, but I can't find the article so I'll retract that claim.
There's a thing called international waters where anyone can do anything they want. In territorial waters, not so much. This is an ancient right of the sea.
I thought it was official US policy that anyone who fled Cuba was allowed to stay here. Is that not the case?
I'm sure they "tried peaceful stuff" but... how hard did they try? Did they ever offer any sort of concessions, or was it just "if you invade our island then I'm giving you fair warning that we're going to kill you"?
Wet Foot Dry Foot is the thing you're talking about. If you can make it to the beach you can stay. But we have a flotilla of USCG ships, speed boats, planes, and helicopters patrolling to stop that from ever happening.
Basically our Cuba policy is a game of Red Rover, Red Rover.
They were at the negotiating table from what I've read and the dbag in charge of Argentina invaded to distract people from their shit economy.
For immigration... i don't know. That's a thorny question. I would just say that size and geography matters a lot. (it's also odd to use Cuba as an example since the US freely welcomes Cuban immigrants to Florida) I brought up Taiwan because, with it's size and relative location, it's inevitably becoming part of China. In the absence of immigration barriers, I think the Falkland islands would naturally become part of Argentina.
Taiwan has at multiple times been part of China, consists mainly of people of Chinese ancestry, and does not consist almost entirely of American citizens. The Falklands has never been part of Argentina, contains almost no one of Argentinean descent, and consists almost entirely of British citizens. These are terrible, terrible comparisons.
I know it's not the same, it's just all I could think of because I can't think of anything that's exactly comparable. I don't know why you're ignoring the simple fact that it's much, much closer to Argentina than it is to Britain.
why does geographical proximity override historical claim and self determination
surely geographical claim would be the least of those three considerations
dlinfiniti on
AAAAA!!! PLAAAYGUUU!!!!
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
Alaska is closer to Russia than the us therefore it should be russian.
For immigration... i don't know. That's a thorny question. I would just say that size and geography matters a lot. (it's also odd to use Cuba as an example since the US freely welcomes Cuban immigrants to Florida) I brought up Taiwan because, with it's size and relative location, it's inevitably becoming part of China. In the absence of immigration barriers, I think the Falkland islands would naturally become part of Argentina.
Taiwan has at multiple times been part of China, consists mainly of people of Chinese ancestry, and does not consist almost entirely of American citizens. The Falklands has never been part of Argentina, contains almost no one of Argentinean descent, and consists almost entirely of British citizens. These are terrible, terrible comparisons.
I know it's not the same, it's just all I could think of because I can't think of anything that's exactly comparable. I don't know why you're ignoring the simple fact that it's much, much closer to Argentina than it is to Britain.
why does geographical proximity override historical claim and self determination
surely geographical claim would be the least of those three considerations
I can't help but feel that if the situation was reversed, if this tiny island were near Britain, but had been colonized by South Americans, and Britain tried to seize it and their argument was "But it's close to us and it has oil. We probably might not even just kill all the inhabitants. Maybe. Trust us."
Well, I really doubt Pi-r8 would be making the case for them to do that. :P
Man, what? We don't freely welcome anything from Cuba. Do you mean wet foot, dry foot? Cause if so, ha good one.
I had read somewhere that the Brits tried peaceful stuff before the war, but I can't find the article so I'll retract that claim.
There's a thing called international waters where anyone can do anything they want. In territorial waters, not so much. This is an ancient right of the sea.
I thought it was official US policy that anyone who fled Cuba was allowed to stay here. Is that not the case?
I'm sure they "tried peaceful stuff" but... how hard did they try? Did they ever offer any sort of concessions, or was it just "if you invade our island then I'm giving you fair warning that we're going to kill you"?
Wet Foot Dry Foot is the thing you're talking about. If you can make it to the beach you can stay. But we have a flotilla of USCG ships, speed boats, planes, and helicopters patrolling to stop that from ever happening.
Basically our Cuba policy is a game of Red Rover, Red Rover.
They were at the negotiating table from what I've read and the dbag in charge of Argentina invaded to distract people from their shit economy.
Ah... yeah that is a retarded immigration policy. But then our whole policy towards Cuba has always been retarded so I guess that's par for the course.
Well anyway it's not like the Cubans are about to overrun Florida. And if Spain was still in control of Cuba I think the US would have a strong argument for contesting that claim.
For immigration... i don't know. That's a thorny question. I would just say that size and geography matters a lot. (it's also odd to use Cuba as an example since the US freely welcomes Cuban immigrants to Florida) I brought up Taiwan because, with it's size and relative location, it's inevitably becoming part of China. In the absence of immigration barriers, I think the Falkland islands would naturally become part of Argentina.
Taiwan has at multiple times been part of China, consists mainly of people of Chinese ancestry, and does not consist almost entirely of American citizens. The Falklands has never been part of Argentina, contains almost no one of Argentinean descent, and consists almost entirely of British citizens. These are terrible, terrible comparisons.
I know it's not the same, it's just all I could think of because I can't think of anything that's exactly comparable. I don't know why you're ignoring the simple fact that it's much, much closer to Argentina than it is to Britain.
why does geographical proximity override historical claim and self determination
surely geographical claim would be the least of those three considerations
It doesn't of course. I just think all 3 factors are important and need to be addressed.
For immigration... i don't know. That's a thorny question. I would just say that size and geography matters a lot. (it's also odd to use Cuba as an example since the US freely welcomes Cuban immigrants to Florida) I brought up Taiwan because, with it's size and relative location, it's inevitably becoming part of China. In the absence of immigration barriers, I think the Falkland islands would naturally become part of Argentina.
Taiwan has at multiple times been part of China, consists mainly of people of Chinese ancestry, and does not consist almost entirely of American citizens. The Falklands has never been part of Argentina, contains almost no one of Argentinean descent, and consists almost entirely of British citizens. These are terrible, terrible comparisons.
I know it's not the same, it's just all I could think of because I can't think of anything that's exactly comparable. I don't know why you're ignoring the simple fact that it's much, much closer to Argentina than it is to Britain.
why does geographical proximity override historical claim and self determination
surely geographical claim would be the least of those three considerations
It doesn't of course. I just think all 3 factors are important and need to be addressed.
Well now I'm just confused. It doesn't matter but you don't know why I'm ignoring it?
Quid on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Man, what? We don't freely welcome anything from Cuba. Do you mean wet foot, dry foot? Cause if so, ha good one.
I had read somewhere that the Brits tried peaceful stuff before the war, but I can't find the article so I'll retract that claim.
There's a thing called international waters where anyone can do anything they want. In territorial waters, not so much. This is an ancient right of the sea.
I thought it was official US policy that anyone who fled Cuba was allowed to stay here. Is that not the case?
I'm sure they "tried peaceful stuff" but... how hard did they try? Did they ever offer any sort of concessions, or was it just "if you invade our island then I'm giving you fair warning that we're going to kill you"?
Wet Foot Dry Foot is the thing you're talking about. If you can make it to the beach you can stay. But we have a flotilla of USCG ships, speed boats, planes, and helicopters patrolling to stop that from ever happening.
Basically our Cuba policy is a game of Red Rover, Red Rover.
They were at the negotiating table from what I've read and the dbag in charge of Argentina invaded to distract people from their shit economy.
Ah... yeah that is a retarded immigration policy. But then our whole policy towards Cuba has always been retarded so I guess that's par for the course.
Well anyway it's not like the Cubans are about to overrun Florida. And if Spain was still in control of Cuba I think the US would have a strong argument for contesting that claim.
Why? We never owned Cuba, it was just floating around down there and if Spain still owned it we'd have fuck all to do with it.
You brought up the idea of immigration and restriction. Many many many Cubans would move to Florida if they could do so freely so it's a directly comparable scenario.
Um how did Britain "play nice" last time? They made a full scale counter-attack after Argentina invaded the islands. I agree they were right to do so, and that Argentina never should have invaded in the first place, but I would like to see them try and negotiate to avoid another such war rather than just going straight to the military option.
Are you trolling?
Britain was at the negotiating table right up to 1981.
We have a right to self defence, and those islanders have the right to self determination.
The only way there will be another war, is if Argentina decides there'll be a war... Just like last time.
For immigration... i don't know. That's a thorny question. I would just say that size and geography matters a lot. (it's also odd to use Cuba as an example since the US freely welcomes Cuban immigrants to Florida) I brought up Taiwan because, with it's size and relative location, it's inevitably becoming part of China. In the absence of immigration barriers, I think the Falkland islands would naturally become part of Argentina.
Taiwan has at multiple times been part of China, consists mainly of people of Chinese ancestry, and does not consist almost entirely of American citizens. The Falklands has never been part of Argentina, contains almost no one of Argentinean descent, and consists almost entirely of British citizens. These are terrible, terrible comparisons.
I know it's not the same, it's just all I could think of because I can't think of anything that's exactly comparable. I don't know why you're ignoring the simple fact that it's much, much closer to Argentina than it is to Britain.
why does geographical proximity override historical claim and self determination
surely geographical claim would be the least of those three considerations
It doesn't of course. I just think all 3 factors are important and need to be addressed.
Well now I'm just confused. It doesn't matter but you don't know why I'm ignoring it?
It doesn't override those other factors. But it still matters, and shouldn't be just ignored.
Man, what? We don't freely welcome anything from Cuba. Do you mean wet foot, dry foot? Cause if so, ha good one.
I had read somewhere that the Brits tried peaceful stuff before the war, but I can't find the article so I'll retract that claim.
There's a thing called international waters where anyone can do anything they want. In territorial waters, not so much. This is an ancient right of the sea.
I thought it was official US policy that anyone who fled Cuba was allowed to stay here. Is that not the case?
I'm sure they "tried peaceful stuff" but... how hard did they try? Did they ever offer any sort of concessions, or was it just "if you invade our island then I'm giving you fair warning that we're going to kill you"?
Wet Foot Dry Foot is the thing you're talking about. If you can make it to the beach you can stay. But we have a flotilla of USCG ships, speed boats, planes, and helicopters patrolling to stop that from ever happening.
Basically our Cuba policy is a game of Red Rover, Red Rover.
They were at the negotiating table from what I've read and the dbag in charge of Argentina invaded to distract people from their shit economy.
Ah... yeah that is a retarded immigration policy. But then our whole policy towards Cuba has always been retarded so I guess that's par for the course.
Well anyway it's not like the Cubans are about to overrun Florida. And if Spain was still in control of Cuba I think the US would have a strong argument for contesting that claim.
Why? We never owned Cuba, it was just floating around down there and if Spain still owned it we'd have fuck all to do with it.
You brought up the idea of immigration and restriction. Many many many Cubans would move to Florida if they could do so freely so it's a directly comparable scenario.
Well, for what it's worth I would totally support allowing Cubans to immigrate freely to Cuba. I think you shouldn't forcibly prevent someone from living in whatever country they want to live without a very, very good reason.
300 miles away is pretty far away. It's closer to Argentina than it is to Britain, but it's still 300 miles. Cuba is closer to the US than that, but I've never seen anyone make a claim that this geographical closeness means the US has a claim on it.
300 miles away is pretty far away. It's closer to Argentina than it is to Britain, but it's still 300 miles. Cuba is closer to the US than that, but I've never seen anyone make a claim that this geographical closeness means the US has a claim on it.
The world of sea territory is a murky and often confused one. However the source of all facts has a handy page summing up the UN's position:
For immigration... i don't know. That's a thorny question. I would just say that size and geography matters a lot. (it's also odd to use Cuba as an example since the US freely welcomes Cuban immigrants to Florida) I brought up Taiwan because, with it's size and relative location, it's inevitably becoming part of China. In the absence of immigration barriers, I think the Falkland islands would naturally become part of Argentina.
Taiwan has at multiple times been part of China, consists mainly of people of Chinese ancestry, and does not consist almost entirely of American citizens. The Falklands has never been part of Argentina, contains almost no one of Argentinean descent, and consists almost entirely of British citizens. These are terrible, terrible comparisons.
I know it's not the same, it's just all I could think of because I can't think of anything that's exactly comparable. I don't know why you're ignoring the simple fact that it's much, much closer to Argentina than it is to Britain.
why does geographical proximity override historical claim and self determination
surely geographical claim would be the least of those three considerations
It doesn't of course. I just think all 3 factors are important and need to be addressed.
Well now I'm just confused. It doesn't matter but you don't know why I'm ignoring it?
It doesn't override those other factors. But it still matters, and shouldn't be just ignored.
so lets say Vlad Putin or Stephen Harper decided to get on the phone tomorrow and call up President Obama and say that they are entitled to some of the ANWR oil due to being much closer to it than we are and that we (USA) should open negotiations with them to discuss this, that the right thing for Obama to do would be to convene a summit and try make concessions because their geographical claim has merit and ought to be considered?
It's absolutely impossible to think that Argentina has a legitimate claim to the Falklands and still have a fucking clue what you're talking about. I can understand the knee jerk "well Britain is the more developed and famously colonial country of the two so the underdog is probably right" reaction but in this particular instance it's complete bollocks. The only proper response to anyone that thinks the Falklands should be ceded to Argentina is "read up on it and stop being so bloody ridiculous"
Apart from anything else, the islands aren't even anywhere near Argentina.
Tube on
0
Options
simonwolfi can feel a differencetoday, a differenceRegistered Userregular
edited February 2012
The Falklands are as British as the Queen's fanny, the day we give them up might as well be the day we shave and tattoo the Big Q with an Argentine flag and lop off her head for a game of Latin-American football
In all seriousness, this situation is as clear-cut as the situation with Gibraltar - if the people who actually live in the place do not wish to have their sovereignty traded off to another nation, then by no means should they be. The people wish to remain under British jurisdiction, and see no connection to move under the authority of the geographically-closer-yet-culturally-distant Argentina. Hell, it's even more clear cut than Gibraltar - at least in that situation, Spain has a semi-justifiable claim to the territory.
Regardless, the will of the people is to keep the status quo, and I do not doubt that if asked to vote, they would maintain that position.
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.
That sounds fine. As soon as the Argentine government restores full sovereignty to the indigineous argentinian peoples, and maybe throws in an apology for murdering them off their lands, we'll discuss this compromise.
Argentina itself is more of a colonial construct than the Falklands.
0
Options
lu tzeSweeping the monestary steps.Registered Userregular
Um no... if I was trolling I would say something like "Brits still can't get over losing their Empire so they have to make do with bombing banana republics to defend their worthless sheep islands while Americans rule the world".
If you were trolling you'd say something like "Um how did Britain "play nice" last time? They made a full scale counter-attack after Argentina invaded the islands"
Posts
But my Canadian friends are having just as hard a time staying in the States.
I'd wager the UK's is slightly more involved than our, but it's damn close.
While I generally like to point out that Britain is behind the US in inequality, that's probably correct (I'm pretty sure it's all education system, but it's always good to keep in mind that "be more like Europe" isn't always great advice). On immigration and immigrant rights, I'd probably say the US has simply stayed a bit more up to date due to more immigration, especially when you consider that the US doesn't have any fast track agreements that I know of.
No
Arizona
QED
More seriously, US immigration policy is a mess. For all intents and purposes it might as well not exist, except for the people willing to jump through the hoops cause of skilled jobs/student visas. Which generally aren't drains on society or security threats.
That's more of a problem with there being greater stress on the system, so the policy issues cause greater trouble. The UK has less immigration and very little illegal immigration, so it can get away with an outdated system.
The American Dream is a myth... try the Canadian one, or the Norwegian one instead.
Alright let's do this.
Yes, there is a certain merit in simply maintaining the status quo for international relations and national borders- any change tends to bring chaos and disruption. That does not mean we should never change national borders- letting Ireland become an independent nation rather than a conquered province of Britain was a good change for example. It's important to weigh injustice with practicality- how much damage will be done by changing the status quo rather than just accepting it? Or as Thomas Jefferson put it: "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
I do think it's important for Americans to acknowledge that all of the US is basically conquered territory, and that conquering that territory involved a massive holocaust of the native people. However, "giving it back" isn't an option. For one thing, Mexico never had any moral claim to it either- it belonged to the native tribes who lived there, and most of them have been completely destroyed. Even if we could do so, giving up the land of the US would involve such a massive disruption that the damage caused would be incalculable. All we can do is acknowledge the wrongs done in the past, and try to avoid repeating them.
In the case of the Falklands, the disruption would not be nearly so extreme. We're talking about some very tiny islands here, with a population of only 3,000 people! Not that we should ignore the wishes of 3,000 people of course, but it's a small enough scale that changing ownership of the islands is actually practical.
However, I don't think that the moral situation is anywhere close to that of the conquered US land either. As everyone has already said, Britain didn't conquer this land from anyone, and certainly not from the nation of Argentina which didn't even exist when the islands were first settled. The islanders, certainly, have done nothing wrong and they must be allowed to keep living there as they wish.
That being said, I do think Argentina has some claim to the island (not an ironclad claim, just... some claim). Most of all simple geography- the islands are much closer to Argentina than to Britain. The islands are completely dependent on trade, and it would be more natural for them to trade with Argentina than with the UK. It would also be much easier for Argentina to defend them, as proven by the fact that the UK wasn't actually able to defend them during the Falklands war (they had to abandon them and then retake them later, and it wasn't an easy mission). If Argentinians were allowed to freely emigrate there, they would probably quickly become the majority on the islands. There is also consensus that the islands are part of southern South America, which formerly belonged to Spain, and since Argentina inherited all the rest of that land from Spain it would be reasonable for them to have inherited the Falkland Islands as well.
More realistically, neither nation really cares about the history of the islands. They're both using them to rile up nationalism, and they both want the oil in the sea around the islands. That doesn't strike me as a particularly strong moral claim by either side.
So I'm definitely not suggesting that Argentina should be allowed to take over the islands and expel all the people currently living there. I'm just arguing that it's not a simple matter of "Britain right, Argentina wrong" and that some sort of compromise should be possible. For example, Britain could allow Argentina to share in the defense of the islands and allow some Argentinians to emigrate there. Or they could offer Argentina a small amount of the oil revenue- surely that would be cheaper than building an entire aircraft carrier just to defend the islands?
But the thing is, Argentina didn't want to be reasonable about it.
Britain offered to put the issue to the international courts. Argentina refused. Britain was up for negotiating sovereignty, as long as the rights of the islanders were considered. Argentina refused.
Instead, they invaded, and got a lot of people killed. Fuck them.
Spoilered for length.
Geography is a rather poor marker for who should have control of a territory. Shall we let China take over defense of Guam?
The only question that matters is "Do the Falklanders wish to remain British". The answer to that question is yes.
Cameron certainly hasn't played politics with this as much as he could. It's gotten maybe one mention in the House of Commons during PMQs. Whereas Kirchner has imposed trade restrictions on the islands and started whining to the UN about the issue.
I reject the idea that Argentina has any claim on the islands since Argentina has never owned them. Ever. They've had continuous British habitation and peaceful ownership since 1833 (except, of course, in 1982).
Why should the UK make any concessions to Argentina? Capitulation?
Argentina is as much "Native American" as the US is. The only difference is they were colonized by Spain instead of Britain. None of our countries are the result of anything other than colonization and murder of indigenous peoples. But the Falklands is the least colonized colony. No one died for Britain to settle those islands, not until the Fascist dictatorship of Galtieri invaded the islands without cause or provocation.
Now, I'm not calling Kirchner a fascist or a dictator. I am calling her an imperialist thug, though. The UK didn't bring this up, Argentina did.
The UK says that the Falklanders have the right of all people to determine their own identity and future. The Argentinians say that the Falklanders don't get an opinion on the matter.
Few things are Good/Bad in this world, I'll agree, but this one gets damn close.
Yeah that was... a terrible decision. I can't believe so many people got killed over such tiny islands.
I dunno, maybe it's because it happened before I was born, but I feel like the Falkland war is almost as much "ancient history" as the original settling, and both nations would do better to just move past it and find a workable compromise right now.
30 years? There are still plenty of people who fought in that war alive today. There are still land mines going off on the Falklands. Say you were 18, fresh in the service, in 1982, you'd be 48 now. That's hardly ancient history.
There's no need for a "workable compromise". The workable compromise is Argentina backs the fuck off and respects the sovereignty of the Falkanders.
Making a claim and rattling sabers doesn't mean you should get anything you want.
I don't want to make this a Godwin, but come on.
It isn't a perfect parallel but it's close.
There has never been a significant Argentine population on the islands. The current population has lived there for nearly 200 years. It is not remotely comparable to, say, British India or the Cape or British Honduras, in which the natives who lived there for centuries were subjugated or replaced by alien invaders - there have never been any native Falklanders except for the people who currently live there. The only "Imperialism" would be forcing these natives to accept Latin American rule. Argentina's claims to the Falklands are founded on nothing but material greed, and it would be a moral tragedy if they were upheld.
Edit: re: Arguments to Geographic Proximity: Bermuda's closer to America than Britain, should we hand it over to the United States?
Except that only reason the Falklanders all want that is because only Brits are allowed to settle on the islands. If Argentina controlled the islands, pretty soon all the Falklanders would want to remain Argentinean.
Oh I agree, Kirchner has handled the situation horribly. Still I can understand why the average Argentinian would want them so strongly. And I think the Falkland War was probably the main reason for Britain building it's new carriers, so that would be an example of playing politics over the issue. It's ridiculous to build a billion-dollar carrier over these tiny little islands. It would be nice to see the nations at least sit down and discuss it rationally at the UN, rather than having Britain completely ignore Argentina's claim.
[/quote]
There's nothing to examine. Britain tried playing nice last time and it cost them 258 lives (including 3 civilians).
Why should the British open their borders to an openly hostile nation?
All countries are allowed to set up immigration checks. This is just grasping at straws. Should we let Cuba vote in Florida elections?
Also, Taiwan doesn't want to be Chinese and and attack on Taiwan would be the opening salvo of WW3. (Also Taiwan's a worse example than the Alaska one I presented earlier)
As a westerner, the highest, holiest value I hold is the belief that people have the right to make up their own minds.
The Falklanders have a right to full use of their territory and the resources therein.
For immigration... i don't know. That's a thorny question. I would just say that size and geography matters a lot. (it's also odd to use Cuba as an example since the US freely welcomes Cuban immigrants to Florida) I brought up Taiwan because, with it's size and relative location, it's inevitably becoming part of China. In the absence of immigration barriers, I think the Falkland islands would naturally become part of Argentina.
I do agree of course that, no matter what happens, the people currently living on the islands should be allowed to continue living there as they are. I'm just not convinced that they have the right to forbid other people from living there, or from using the sea around the islands. Especially since, according to Wikipedia, the islands are currently experiencing a labor shortage and could benefit from having more workers.
Taiwan has at multiple times been part of China, consists mainly of people of Chinese ancestry, and does not consist almost entirely of American citizens. The Falklands has never been part of Argentina, contains almost no one of Argentinean descent, and consists almost entirely of British citizens. These are terrible, terrible comparisons.
I had read somewhere that the Brits tried peaceful stuff before the war, but I can't find the article so I'll retract that claim.
There's a thing called international waters where anyone can do anything they want. In territorial waters, not so much. This is an ancient right of the sea.
Britain was at the negotiating table right up to 1981.
We have a right to self defence, and those islanders have the right to self determination.
The only way there will be another war, is if Argentina decides there'll be a war... Just like last time.
I thought it was official US policy that anyone who fled Cuba was allowed to stay here. Is that not the case?
I'm sure they "tried peaceful stuff" but... how hard did they try? Did they ever offer any sort of concessions, or was it just "if you invade our island then I'm giving you fair warning that we're going to kill you"?
Um no... if I was trolling I would say something like "Brits still can't get over losing their Empire so they have to make do with bombing banana republics to defend their worthless sheep islands while Americans rule the world".
Wet Foot Dry Foot is the thing you're talking about. If you can make it to the beach you can stay. But we have a flotilla of USCG ships, speed boats, planes, and helicopters patrolling to stop that from ever happening.
Basically our Cuba policy is a game of Red Rover, Red Rover.
They were at the negotiating table from what I've read and the dbag in charge of Argentina invaded to distract people from their shit economy.
why does geographical proximity override historical claim and self determination
surely geographical claim would be the least of those three considerations
I can't help but feel that if the situation was reversed, if this tiny island were near Britain, but had been colonized by South Americans, and Britain tried to seize it and their argument was "But it's close to us and it has oil. We probably might not even just kill all the inhabitants. Maybe. Trust us."
Well, I really doubt Pi-r8 would be making the case for them to do that. :P
Ah... yeah that is a retarded immigration policy. But then our whole policy towards Cuba has always been retarded so I guess that's par for the course.
Well anyway it's not like the Cubans are about to overrun Florida. And if Spain was still in control of Cuba I think the US would have a strong argument for contesting that claim.
It doesn't of course. I just think all 3 factors are important and need to be addressed.
So?
Edit:
Well now I'm just confused. It doesn't matter but you don't know why I'm ignoring it?
Why? We never owned Cuba, it was just floating around down there and if Spain still owned it we'd have fuck all to do with it.
You brought up the idea of immigration and restriction. Many many many Cubans would move to Florida if they could do so freely so it's a directly comparable scenario.
...from their tent city's?
It doesn't override those other factors. But it still matters, and shouldn't be just ignored.
Well, for what it's worth I would totally support allowing Cubans to immigrate freely to Cuba. I think you shouldn't forcibly prevent someone from living in whatever country they want to live without a very, very good reason.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Why does it matter?
The world of sea territory is a murky and often confused one. However the source of all facts has a handy page summing up the UN's position:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters
Even if the Falklands itself didn't exert any claims over the waters then The Falklands is still outside Argentina's Exclusive Economic Zone
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
so lets say Vlad Putin or Stephen Harper decided to get on the phone tomorrow and call up President Obama and say that they are entitled to some of the ANWR oil due to being much closer to it than we are and that we (USA) should open negotiations with them to discuss this, that the right thing for Obama to do would be to convene a summit and try make concessions because their geographical claim has merit and ought to be considered?
Apart from anything else, the islands aren't even anywhere near Argentina.
In all seriousness, this situation is as clear-cut as the situation with Gibraltar - if the people who actually live in the place do not wish to have their sovereignty traded off to another nation, then by no means should they be. The people wish to remain under British jurisdiction, and see no connection to move under the authority of the geographically-closer-yet-culturally-distant Argentina. Hell, it's even more clear cut than Gibraltar - at least in that situation, Spain has a semi-justifiable claim to the territory.
Regardless, the will of the people is to keep the status quo, and I do not doubt that if asked to vote, they would maintain that position.
That sounds fine. As soon as the Argentine government restores full sovereignty to the indigineous argentinian peoples, and maybe throws in an apology for murdering them off their lands, we'll discuss this compromise.
Argentina itself is more of a colonial construct than the Falklands.
Oh wait, you did say that. Hence.