The only real claim that we have on the islands is that they are firmly inside the Argentinian Sea, so, geographically, they belong to this country. Everything else is nationalism (which, by the way, is pretty high right now in some political circles) and perhaps an economic grab by the state for the possible oil reserves. Everything that I could say about the British position has already been said quite eloquently, and I agree.
Tbh I think even this is up for debate. Yes, they are a lot closer to Argentina than the UK but lets not lose sight of the fact that they're still three or four hundred miles away from Argentina. That's well outside Argentinas economic exclusion zone.
Yeah, I don't want to nitpick an otherwise excellent post from our Argentine friend, but the continental shelf argument is definitely debatable. Argentina can certainly claim the continental shelf out to 400 miles, which would encompass the Falklands, but it totally ignores the Falklands claim to the same shelf.
The continental shelf is good form claiming economic rights, but does not have any effect on a territorial claim. Even on economic rights the Argentine claim is dubious, and conveniently ignores the UK/Falkands claims.
Except most of that list are part of a rather embarrassing legacy of colonialism, while the Falklands were uninhabited (except, possibly, by other colonial powers) when discovered.
If anything, bringing up other unrelated territories weakens the argument for keeping the Falklands.
How so? The whole claim for keeping the Falklands lies in the Falklander's personal sense of identity and sovereignty. Until such time as the people of the islands wish to be independent or non-British then the question is pretty moot.
If we're going to go down the "embarrassing legacy of colonialism" loop hole, we'd all have to move back to Europe.
I was referring to the foolishness of Phyphor's use of that list to attempt to refute Pi-R8's argument about geography; you're exactly right that the Falklands should stay British because they have a proud history of being so. I would also note that their history is rather different from other examples in Phyphor's list.
By bringing up other territories, Phyphor muddles the issue. There is actually a much better argument for giving many of those back than there ever will be for the Falklands.
Sure, they're all results of colonialism. There's not much else they can be considering they're all territories a huge distance from the main country. Yet they've all been British or French for hundreds of years (somewhat less for the American territories), or unoccupied. And, they do choose to remain with their home country. Gibraltar rejected a proposal to give it back to Spain 10 years ago. Why cede one because of geographical concerns without ceding them all? Arguably Spain has a much, much better claim to Gibraltar than Argentinia does to the Falklands.
But that's exactly my point; by shifting the discussion to encompass places like Gibraltar, you make the decision less obvious than when we were talking about the Falklands alone. Because Spain has a much, much better claim to Gibraltar than Argentina does to the Falklands.
There's a better argument for giving up nearly every territory other than the Falklands than there is for giving up the Falklands. So why the hell would you use those as an argument to keep the Falklands?
Because if the argument that they don't want to be part of Spain is good enough for the Gibraltans, it's certainly good enough for the Falklanders.
Basically this. The only reason that we're even talking about the Falklands is because Argentina invaded before. Gibraltar wants to remain British despite a good Spanish claim, they still are. St. Pierre & Miquelon, uninhabited territories that were both British and French during their history and a few miles off of Canada's coast - still French. The uninhabited or barely inhabited Pacific territories of Britain and America - nobody's clamoring to give the Pitcairn Islands to someone or the American Samoa to Fiji or whatever. The inhabitants of these territories, despite colonialism, are now American, or French, or British, or whatever and have been for a very long time. There are, in many cases, no original inhabitants to give them back to
Claiming sovereignty over people living in Kenya, Vietnam or Mozambique? Colonialism.
Claiming sovereignty over a few islands where the only indigenous inhabitants are penguins? Not so much. Even if they are oh-so close to Argentina and oh-so far away from the UK.
And a couple of those penguin species have been reduced by 90%, with one species still in freefall. And there are many other endemic species that are suffering as well.
So I may be the only one concerned by that, but the argument "Just let Argentinians immigrate freely to the Falklands and see how fast the demographics shift!" sounds a lot more like "Fuck biodiversity, we'll just fill the place up so we can pump oil and fuck everything else."
Gibraltar's relations are a bit clearer (sorta) as they are governed by an agreed, if historic treaty.
One thing to remember with all this talk of continental shelf and EEZ, this is all new law and the 200 mile or continental shelf claims were not really finally agreed in till late 1982. Lots of countries, like Argentina, had declared a unilateral 200 mile zone in the 60s, but that remained contentious for many years
The only real claim that we have on the islands is that they are firmly inside the Argentinian Sea, so, geographically, they belong to this country. Everything else is nationalism (which, by the way, is pretty high right now in some political circles) and perhaps an economic grab by the state for the possible oil reserves. Everything that I could say about the British position has already been said quite eloquently, and I agree.
Tbh I think even this is up for debate. Yes, they are a lot closer to Argentina than the UK but lets not lose sight of the fact that they're still three or four hundred miles away from Argentina. That's well outside Argentinas economic exclusion zone.
Yeah, I don't want to nitpick an otherwise excellent post from our Argentine friend, but the continental shelf argument is definitely debatable. Argentina can certainly claim the continental shelf out to 400 miles, which would encompass the Falklands, but it totally ignores the Falklands claim to the same shelf.
The continental shelf is good form claiming economic rights, but does not have any effect on a territorial claim. Even on economic rights the Argentine claim is dubious, and conveniently ignores the UK/Falkands claims.
So, by this whole geographical claim thingy, does that mean that Argentina loses her claim on Tierra del Fuego? Also, am I the only one here who reads that kind of argument and immediately thinks, "Danzig Corridor"?
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
Why would an initially unilateral declaration of a vastly extended economic or territorial zone by Argentina over a century after Spain lost the islands have any bearing on the former's claim to the Falklands?
If proximity to the eastern coastline of Argentina is what primarily matters for territorial claims, wouldn't Argentina deserve all of Chile more than it deserves the Falklands?
So, by this whole geographical claim thingy, does that mean that Argentina loses her claim on Tierra del Fuego?
I don't know enough about that issue, but by a quick wiki glance it looks like a completely dissimilar case to the Falklands.
EDIT: Also, the Danzig Corridor isn't really analogous, as the Falklands would have easy access to the ocean because the Argentine claim would not extend to the eastern edge of the Falkland claim. Or that's how it looks when you look at a map.
If proximity to the eastern coastline of Argentina is what primarily matters for territorial claims, wouldn't Argentina deserve all of Chile more than it deserves the Falklands?
Yes but Chile is large.
Apparently only small countries forfeit their right to self-governance and sovereignty to any neighbor who looks at them and says "Yeah, I'll take that."
There were decades of debate only ending in 82 on the matter of sea borders and exploitation. Interestingly, a lot of that debate was on the topic of island, independent or colonial possession and hoe that would impact on claims. I suspect a lot of Argentina's views on the FI, like other states near colonial power owned islands was aggravated by the land grab on the high seas
So, by this whole geographical claim thingy, does that mean that Argentina loses her claim on Tierra del Fuego?
I don't know enough about that issue, but by a quick wiki glance it looks like a completely dissimilar case to the Falklands.
EDIT: Also, the Danzig Corridor isn't really analogous, as the Falklands would have easy access to the ocean because the Argentine claim would not extend to the eastern edge of the Falkland claim. Or that's how it looks when you look at a map.
I know the two cases are not the same, notably because there was a treaty establishing the boundary, but if the Argentine government wants to get all stroppy about their proximity to the Falklands and its presence on their continental shelf, maybe we should start taking a look at their exclaves and near-exclaves (of which they actually do have a couple).
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
Do you know how the military dictatorship treated a Jewish enterpreneur back in 1980? The buffoons kicked and beaten him, torn out his beard, knocked out his teeth, shaved his head; they cut off his right hand and flung him into prison. Then he was paraded naked on the Buenos Aires streets: with a foul clump of bloody rags on the stump of his right wrist, and clotted blood on his gaunt cheeks, because they had just gouged out one of his eyes. Around him the most desperate of the city's inhabitants, sausage-makers, tanners, and the dregs of every tavern, collecting like swarms of flies in spring around a horse turd, struck his head with their clubs, stuffed ox excrement in his nostrils, squeezed sponges soaked in cow piss over his nose, thrust skewers into his legs; the milder threw stones at him, calling him rabid dog and son of a bitch in heat. From a brothel window, a prostitute emptied a pan of boiling water over him. Then the crowd's fury increased further; they hanged him by his feet from the two columns. Once he was strung up, a man with a sword neatly cut off his genitals, another stuck a spear in his mouth, impaling him to his viscera, while still another impaled him through the anus.
They're beasts in human form. Let them rot in their distant, non-important corner of the world.
Claiming sovereignty over people living in Kenya, Vietnam or Mozambique? Colonialism.
Claiming sovereignty over a few islands where the only indigenous inhabitants are penguins? Not so much. Even if they are oh-so close to Argentina and oh-so far away from the UK.
And a couple of those penguin species have been reduced by 90%, with one species still in freefall. And there are many other endemic species that are suffering as well.
So I may be the only one concerned by that, but the argument "Just let Argentinians immigrate freely to the Falklands and see how fast the demographics shift!" sounds a lot more like "Fuck biodiversity, we'll just fill the place up so we can pump oil and fuck everything else."
Surprisingly, the Falklands war has done a lot of good for penguins - the sheer amount of mines laid by the Argentinians during the war have limited where farmers can graze their sheep. The penguins don't set off the mines and thus have incredibly safe habitats!
Claiming sovereignty over people living in Kenya, Vietnam or Mozambique? Colonialism.
Claiming sovereignty over a few islands where the only indigenous inhabitants are penguins? Not so much. Even if they are oh-so close to Argentina and oh-so far away from the UK.
Actually, the defining part of a colony is sending over colonists to produce resources from the new domains.
Claiming sovereignty over people living in Kenya, Vietnam or Mozambique? Colonialism.
Claiming sovereignty over a few islands where the only indigenous inhabitants are penguins? Not so much. Even if they are oh-so close to Argentina and oh-so far away from the UK.
And a couple of those penguin species have been reduced by 90%, with one species still in freefall. And there are many other endemic species that are suffering as well.
So I may be the only one concerned by that, but the argument "Just let Argentinians immigrate freely to the Falklands and see how fast the demographics shift!" sounds a lot more like "Fuck biodiversity, we'll just fill the place up so we can pump oil and fuck everything else."
Surprisingly, the Falklands war has done a lot of good for penguins - the sheer amount of mines laid by the Argentinians during the war have limited where farmers can graze their sheep. The penguins don't set off the mines and thus have incredibly safe habitats!
Unfortunately what is killing off the penguins is the commercial fishing. The species that either didn't eat commercially viable fish, or who were adaptable enough to switch over are doing alright. The other two experienced population crashes, with this little guy heading for non-existence on the Falklands: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magellanic_Penguin
-edit-
My point being, any attempt to immigrate a bunch of people to the island will create more food and economic pressure, which means more commercial fishing, which will finish off the Magellanics for sure, and probably the Rockhopper as well.
But hey, as long as it means a critical mass of South American voters on the islands to take away a possession from those evil Brits!
Do you know how the military dictatorship treated a Jewish enterpreneur back in 1980? The buffoons kicked and beaten him, torn out his beard, knocked out his teeth, shaved his head; they cut off his right hand and flung him into prison. Then he was paraded naked on the Buenos Aires streets: with a foul clump of bloody rags on the stump of his right wrist, and clotted blood on his gaunt cheeks, because they had just gouged out one of his eyes. Around him the most desperate of the city's inhabitants, sausage-makers, tanners, and the dregs of every tavern, collecting like swarms of flies in spring around a horse turd, struck his head with their clubs, stuffed ox excrement in his nostrils, squeezed sponges soaked in cow piss over his nose, thrust skewers into his legs; the milder threw stones at him, calling him rabid dog and son of a bitch in heat. From a brothel window, a prostitute emptied a pan of boiling water over him. Then the crowd's fury increased further; they hanged him by his feet from the two columns. Once he was strung up, a man with a sword neatly cut off his genitals, another stuck a spear in his mouth, impaling him to his viscera, while still another impaled him through the anus.
They're beasts in human form. Let them rot in their distant, non-important corner of the world.
I for one am definitely convinced by this well-documented, meticulously referenced claim.
Hahah wait no I'm not!
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Claiming sovereignty over people living in Kenya, Vietnam or Mozambique? Colonialism.
Claiming sovereignty over a few islands where the only indigenous inhabitants are penguins? Not so much. Even if they are oh-so close to Argentina and oh-so far away from the UK.
And a couple of those penguin species have been reduced by 90%, with one species still in freefall. And there are many other endemic species that are suffering as well.
So I may be the only one concerned by that, but the argument "Just let Argentinians immigrate freely to the Falklands and see how fast the demographics shift!" sounds a lot more like "Fuck biodiversity, we'll just fill the place up so we can pump oil and fuck everything else."
Surprisingly, the Falklands war has done a lot of good for penguins - the sheer amount of mines laid by the Argentinians during the war have limited where farmers can graze their sheep. The penguins don't set off the mines and thus have incredibly safe habitats!
Unfortunately what is killing off the penguins is the commercial fishing. The species that either didn't eat commercially viable fish, or who were adaptable enough to switch over are doing alright. The other two experienced population crashes, with this little guy heading for non-existence on the Falklands: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magellanic_Penguin
-edit-
My point being, any attempt to immigrate a bunch of people to the island will create more food and economic pressure, which means more commercial fishing, which will finish off the Magellanics for sure, and probably the Rockhopper as well.
But hey, as long as it means a critical mass of South American voters on the islands to take away a possession from those evil Brits!
Come on, man. When it comes to penguins, it's Emperor or nothing.
But yeah, the Falklands are tiny little islands, you can't allow whoever wants to to just come into them. And that ignores the universal principle of immigration restrictions.
Anybody have actual evidence that there are tons of Argentinians clamoring to move to the Falklands but those big, tea drinking meanies won't let them?
Reading this, I am strongly tempted to grow a moustache, just so I can twirl it.
On a side note: Would anyone care to speculate how strongly Mr Penn was influenced by the longstanding Hollywood tradition of using upper middle class English accents as a lazy marker of villainy when he made his unfortunate comments to the press?
That's really what I was getting at, thank you for stating it.
Tiny and medium sized islands have fragile ecologies, and you cannot, you absolutely just cannot fill them up with people. You cannot fill New Zealand to capacity the way you can Texas and expect to not murderate every single endemic species. The Falklands are even tinier and more fragile. 3,000 people may not sound like a lot, but for islands that size it is more than enough to stress the ecosystem already.
Claims that people should be able to simply live anywhere, move anywhere, ignore these facts completely.
Seriously who cares about if a million Argentinians want to move there?
It's a foreign country, there are laws. Seriously?
I take a million Swedes with me to Monaco and now we run the place? I don't even get what the point to this discussion is.
There is an ultra-liberal, almost anarchistic belief that moving to any old country you want is a basic human right. Therefore, restrictions on immigration are a violation of human rights.
No countries support this idea at all. Even fucking Somalia won't let you just show up and be all "Hay guys, I'm here with my 4,000,000 immigrant friends."
But the idea crops up from time to time, always sung out with the purest and most innocent idealism.
And when that happens it needs to be beaten firmly back down into the ground as the stupid idea that it is.
Except most of that list are part of a rather embarrassing legacy of colonialism, while the Falklands were uninhabited (except, possibly, by other colonial powers) when discovered.
If anything, bringing up other unrelated territories weakens the argument for keeping the Falklands.
How so? The whole claim for keeping the Falklands lies in the Falklander's personal sense of identity and sovereignty. Until such time as the people of the islands wish to be independent or non-British then the question is pretty moot.
If we're going to go down the "embarrassing legacy of colonialism" loop hole, we'd all have to move back to Europe.
I was referring to the foolishness of Phyphor's use of that list to attempt to refute Pi-R8's argument about geography; you're exactly right that the Falklands should stay British because they have a proud history of being so. I would also note that their history is rather different from other examples in Phyphor's list.
By bringing up other territories, Phyphor muddles the issue. There is actually a much better argument for giving many of those back than there ever will be for the Falklands.
Sure, they're all results of colonialism. There's not much else they can be considering they're all territories a huge distance from the main country. Yet they've all been British or French for hundreds of years (somewhat less for the American territories), or unoccupied. And, they do choose to remain with their home country. Gibraltar rejected a proposal to give it back to Spain 10 years ago. Why cede one because of geographical concerns without ceding them all? Arguably Spain has a much, much better claim to Gibraltar than Argentinia does to the Falklands.
But that's exactly my point; by shifting the discussion to encompass places like Gibraltar, you make the decision less obvious than when we were talking about the Falklands alone. Because Spain has a much, much better claim to Gibraltar than Argentina does to the Falklands.
There's a better argument for giving up nearly every territory other than the Falklands than there is for giving up the Falklands. So why the hell would you use those as an argument to keep the Falklands?
Because if the argument that they don't want to be part of Spain is good enough for the Gibraltans, it's certainly good enough for the Falklanders.
Basically this. The only reason that we're even talking about the Falklands is because Argentina invaded before. Gibraltar wants to remain British despite a good Spanish claim, they still are. St. Pierre & Miquelon, uninhabited territories that were both British and French during their history and a few miles off of Canada's coast - still French. The uninhabited or barely inhabited Pacific territories of Britain and America - nobody's clamoring to give the Pitcairn Islands to someone or the American Samoa to Fiji or whatever. The inhabitants of these territories, despite colonialism, are now American, or French, or British, or whatever and have been for a very long time. There are, in many cases, no original inhabitants to give them back to
Err St Pierre & Miquelon have a bigger permanent population than the Falklands you know.
Except most of that list are part of a rather embarrassing legacy of colonialism, while the Falklands were uninhabited (except, possibly, by other colonial powers) when discovered.
If anything, bringing up other unrelated territories weakens the argument for keeping the Falklands.
How so? The whole claim for keeping the Falklands lies in the Falklander's personal sense of identity and sovereignty. Until such time as the people of the islands wish to be independent or non-British then the question is pretty moot.
If we're going to go down the "embarrassing legacy of colonialism" loop hole, we'd all have to move back to Europe.
I was referring to the foolishness of Phyphor's use of that list to attempt to refute Pi-R8's argument about geography; you're exactly right that the Falklands should stay British because they have a proud history of being so. I would also note that their history is rather different from other examples in Phyphor's list.
By bringing up other territories, Phyphor muddles the issue. There is actually a much better argument for giving many of those back than there ever will be for the Falklands.
Sure, they're all results of colonialism. There's not much else they can be considering they're all territories a huge distance from the main country. Yet they've all been British or French for hundreds of years (somewhat less for the American territories), or unoccupied. And, they do choose to remain with their home country. Gibraltar rejected a proposal to give it back to Spain 10 years ago. Why cede one because of geographical concerns without ceding them all? Arguably Spain has a much, much better claim to Gibraltar than Argentinia does to the Falklands.
But that's exactly my point; by shifting the discussion to encompass places like Gibraltar, you make the decision less obvious than when we were talking about the Falklands alone. Because Spain has a much, much better claim to Gibraltar than Argentina does to the Falklands.
There's a better argument for giving up nearly every territory other than the Falklands than there is for giving up the Falklands. So why the hell would you use those as an argument to keep the Falklands?
Because if the argument that they don't want to be part of Spain is good enough for the Gibraltans, it's certainly good enough for the Falklanders.
Basically this. The only reason that we're even talking about the Falklands is because Argentina invaded before. Gibraltar wants to remain British despite a good Spanish claim, they still are. St. Pierre & Miquelon, uninhabited territories that were both British and French during their history and a few miles off of Canada's coast - still French. The uninhabited or barely inhabited Pacific territories of Britain and America - nobody's clamoring to give the Pitcairn Islands to someone or the American Samoa to Fiji or whatever. The inhabitants of these territories, despite colonialism, are now American, or French, or British, or whatever and have been for a very long time. There are, in many cases, no original inhabitants to give them back to
Err St Pierre & Miquelon have a bigger permanent population than the Falklands you know.
He's saying that historically, prior to European colonization, St. Pierre & Miquelon were uninhabited. Not that they are now.
Hehe I love it when people think the Commonwealth actually means anything. The commonwealth nowadays is about sports and the commonwealth family of business/education organisations and charities. Its important to some of the developing nations as its good for branding and gets your higher education system accredited by western nations. It has zero military or political weight.
You're right, I referred to Canada's current standing as part of the British Commonwealth, which is pretty much a political non-entity. I should have pointed to their status during the attempted annexation by America, at which time the Canuckistanis were still very much Subjects of the British Empire. My bad.
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
They're beasts in human form. Let them rot in their distant, non-important corner of the world.
Part of me thinks this should pass without comment, so as to avoid legitimizing it or derailing the thread; another part of me thinks this should not be allowed to pass without comment, because it's entirely unhinged. The second impulse won out in the end, so: what the balls.
They're beasts in human form. Let them rot in their distant, non-important corner of the world.
Part of me thinks this should pass without comment, so as to avoid legitimizing it or derailing the thread; another part of me thinks this should not be allowed to pass without comment, because it's entirely unhinged. The second impulse won out in the end, so: what the balls.
I just reported it... not worth actually engaging it and derailing the thread with such ridiculousness.
0
Options
lu tzeSweeping the monestary steps.Registered Userregular
So, to that guy who said "They didn't listen to us in the 80's, fuck them", please, don't hate an entire country for the decisions made by a group of bastards with green uniforms.
That would probably be me, and no I don't.
Same way I can be critical of the U.S. or even my own country (and I am, believe me) without thinking the entire nation are shit eating wankers who deserve nothing but scorn and ridicule.
Claiming sovereignty over people living in Kenya, Vietnam or Mozambique? Colonialism.
Claiming sovereignty over a few islands where the only indigenous inhabitants are penguins? Not so much. Even if they are oh-so close to Argentina and oh-so far away from the UK.
Actually, the defining part of a colony is sending over colonists to produce resources from the new domains.
. . . and those colonists then subjugating the local peoples. Which didn't happen in the Falklands, since there weren't any local peoples to subjugate.
The people who live there are British citizens of largely British descent and apparently are quite satisfied remaining as British subjects. It probably wouldn't hurt to hold a referendum every now and then to confirm this, but as far as I'm concerned that's what counts - the views of the people who live there, not geography.
Now that's just not factual at all. They are referred to as "Argentines" thank you.
Also...wtf?
0
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
Is that something he made up? I mean, even if it's true I wouldn't condemn an entire nation over some people being horrible, but yeah, you'd think that'd come up before.
Claiming sovereignty over people living in Kenya, Vietnam or Mozambique? Colonialism.
Claiming sovereignty over a few islands where the only indigenous inhabitants are penguins? Not so much. Even if they are oh-so close to Argentina and oh-so far away from the UK.
Actually, the defining part of a colony is sending over colonists to produce resources from the new domains.
. . . and those colonists then subjugating the local peoples. Which didn't happen in the Falklands, since there weren't any local peoples to subjugate.
The people who live there are British citizens of largely British descent and apparently are quite satisfied remaining as British subjects. It probably wouldn't hurt to hold a referendum every now and then to confirm this, but as far as I'm concerned that's what counts - the views of the people who live there, not geography.
I'd also point out that the British are pretty good at that whole post colonial guilt thing. Hell, they're pondering breaking up their own country for christ's sake. They like referendums like Americans enjoy a good barbecue.
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
God damn it, Sean Penn you insane bastard, stop making Americans look stupid.
So, someone should ask Mr. Penn if he thinks Texas should let Mexico have the rights to oil we find there or if Florida should share off shore oil revenue with Cuba.
Posts
Yeah, I don't want to nitpick an otherwise excellent post from our Argentine friend, but the continental shelf argument is definitely debatable. Argentina can certainly claim the continental shelf out to 400 miles, which would encompass the Falklands, but it totally ignores the Falklands claim to the same shelf.
The continental shelf is good form claiming economic rights, but does not have any effect on a territorial claim. Even on economic rights the Argentine claim is dubious, and conveniently ignores the UK/Falkands claims.
Basically this. The only reason that we're even talking about the Falklands is because Argentina invaded before. Gibraltar wants to remain British despite a good Spanish claim, they still are. St. Pierre & Miquelon, uninhabited territories that were both British and French during their history and a few miles off of Canada's coast - still French. The uninhabited or barely inhabited Pacific territories of Britain and America - nobody's clamoring to give the Pitcairn Islands to someone or the American Samoa to Fiji or whatever. The inhabitants of these territories, despite colonialism, are now American, or French, or British, or whatever and have been for a very long time. There are, in many cases, no original inhabitants to give them back to
And a couple of those penguin species have been reduced by 90%, with one species still in freefall. And there are many other endemic species that are suffering as well.
So I may be the only one concerned by that, but the argument "Just let Argentinians immigrate freely to the Falklands and see how fast the demographics shift!" sounds a lot more like "Fuck biodiversity, we'll just fill the place up so we can pump oil and fuck everything else."
One thing to remember with all this talk of continental shelf and EEZ, this is all new law and the 200 mile or continental shelf claims were not really finally agreed in till late 1982. Lots of countries, like Argentina, had declared a unilateral 200 mile zone in the 60s, but that remained contentious for many years
So, by this whole geographical claim thingy, does that mean that Argentina loses her claim on Tierra del Fuego? Also, am I the only one here who reads that kind of argument and immediately thinks, "Danzig Corridor"?
- John Stuart Mill
I don't know enough about that issue, but by a quick wiki glance it looks like a completely dissimilar case to the Falklands.
EDIT: Also, the Danzig Corridor isn't really analogous, as the Falklands would have easy access to the ocean because the Argentine claim would not extend to the eastern edge of the Falkland claim. Or that's how it looks when you look at a map.
Yes but Chile is large.
Apparently only small countries forfeit their right to self-governance and sovereignty to any neighbor who looks at them and says "Yeah, I'll take that."
I know the two cases are not the same, notably because there was a treaty establishing the boundary, but if the Argentine government wants to get all stroppy about their proximity to the Falklands and its presence on their continental shelf, maybe we should start taking a look at their exclaves and near-exclaves (of which they actually do have a couple).
- John Stuart Mill
Do you know how the military dictatorship treated a Jewish enterpreneur back in 1980? The buffoons kicked and beaten him, torn out his beard, knocked out his teeth, shaved his head; they cut off his right hand and flung him into prison. Then he was paraded naked on the Buenos Aires streets: with a foul clump of bloody rags on the stump of his right wrist, and clotted blood on his gaunt cheeks, because they had just gouged out one of his eyes. Around him the most desperate of the city's inhabitants, sausage-makers, tanners, and the dregs of every tavern, collecting like swarms of flies in spring around a horse turd, struck his head with their clubs, stuffed ox excrement in his nostrils, squeezed sponges soaked in cow piss over his nose, thrust skewers into his legs; the milder threw stones at him, calling him rabid dog and son of a bitch in heat. From a brothel window, a prostitute emptied a pan of boiling water over him. Then the crowd's fury increased further; they hanged him by his feet from the two columns. Once he was strung up, a man with a sword neatly cut off his genitals, another stuck a spear in his mouth, impaling him to his viscera, while still another impaled him through the anus.
They're beasts in human form. Let them rot in their distant, non-important corner of the world.
Surprisingly, the Falklands war has done a lot of good for penguins - the sheer amount of mines laid by the Argentinians during the war have limited where farmers can graze their sheep. The penguins don't set off the mines and thus have incredibly safe habitats!
Actually, the defining part of a colony is sending over colonists to produce resources from the new domains.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Unfortunately what is killing off the penguins is the commercial fishing. The species that either didn't eat commercially viable fish, or who were adaptable enough to switch over are doing alright. The other two experienced population crashes, with this little guy heading for non-existence on the Falklands: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magellanic_Penguin
-edit-
My point being, any attempt to immigrate a bunch of people to the island will create more food and economic pressure, which means more commercial fishing, which will finish off the Magellanics for sure, and probably the Rockhopper as well.
But hey, as long as it means a critical mass of South American voters on the islands to take away a possession from those evil Brits!
I for one am definitely convinced by this well-documented, meticulously referenced claim.
Hahah wait no I'm not!
Come on, man. When it comes to penguins, it's Emperor or nothing.
But yeah, the Falklands are tiny little islands, you can't allow whoever wants to to just come into them. And that ignores the universal principle of immigration restrictions.
Anybody have actual evidence that there are tons of Argentinians clamoring to move to the Falklands but those big, tea drinking meanies won't let them?
Reading this, I am strongly tempted to grow a moustache, just so I can twirl it.
On a side note: Would anyone care to speculate how strongly Mr Penn was influenced by the longstanding Hollywood tradition of using upper middle class English accents as a lazy marker of villainy when he made his unfortunate comments to the press?
Tiny and medium sized islands have fragile ecologies, and you cannot, you absolutely just cannot fill them up with people. You cannot fill New Zealand to capacity the way you can Texas and expect to not murderate every single endemic species. The Falklands are even tinier and more fragile. 3,000 people may not sound like a lot, but for islands that size it is more than enough to stress the ecosystem already.
Claims that people should be able to simply live anywhere, move anywhere, ignore these facts completely.
It's a foreign country, there are laws. Seriously?
I take a million Swedes with me to Monaco and now we run the place? I don't even get what the point to this discussion is.
This is what happens, Honk, when people don't do the research.
There is an ultra-liberal, almost anarchistic belief that moving to any old country you want is a basic human right. Therefore, restrictions on immigration are a violation of human rights.
No countries support this idea at all. Even fucking Somalia won't let you just show up and be all "Hay guys, I'm here with my 4,000,000 immigrant friends."
But the idea crops up from time to time, always sung out with the purest and most innocent idealism.
And when that happens it needs to be beaten firmly back down into the ground as the stupid idea that it is.
Err St Pierre & Miquelon have a bigger permanent population than the Falklands you know.
Historically speaking, the "discussion" has been whether they've brought some warships and, ideally, some well trained infantry with them.
If YES -> Sov change
If NO -> Poorly paid waiter jobs
Overall, no. On specific claims, yeah.
He's saying that historically, prior to European colonization, St. Pierre & Miquelon were uninhabited. Not that they are now.
You're right, I referred to Canada's current standing as part of the British Commonwealth, which is pretty much a political non-entity. I should have pointed to their status during the attempted annexation by America, at which time the Canuckistanis were still very much Subjects of the British Empire. My bad.
Part of me thinks this should pass without comment, so as to avoid legitimizing it or derailing the thread; another part of me thinks this should not be allowed to pass without comment, because it's entirely unhinged. The second impulse won out in the end, so: what the balls.
I just reported it... not worth actually engaging it and derailing the thread with such ridiculousness.
Same way I can be critical of the U.S. or even my own country (and I am, believe me) without thinking the entire nation are shit eating wankers who deserve nothing but scorn and ridicule.
I reserve that opinion for the French.
edit: and Sean Penn, obviously.
The people who live there are British citizens of largely British descent and apparently are quite satisfied remaining as British subjects. It probably wouldn't hurt to hold a referendum every now and then to confirm this, but as far as I'm concerned that's what counts - the views of the people who live there, not geography.
Now that's just not factual at all. They are referred to as "Argentines" thank you.
Also...wtf?
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
I'd also point out that the British are pretty good at that whole post colonial guilt thing. Hell, they're pondering breaking up their own country for christ's sake. They like referendums like Americans enjoy a good barbecue.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/23/sean-penn-falklands-malvinas-diplomacy-interrupted
So, someone should ask Mr. Penn if he thinks Texas should let Mexico have the rights to oil we find there or if Florida should share off shore oil revenue with Cuba.
"Sean Penn's home state has belonged to the US for 13 years less than the Falkland Islands have been continuously British."