Really, this just provides the Islanders with one more way of proving their nationality, participating in the nearly five hundred year old British tradition of telling popes to go fuck themselves.
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.
There can be no talks until Argentina admits that the Falkland Islanders exist. This is probably because Argentina knows they have no case against the Brits if they do.
And the "militarization of the South Atlantic"? Well by golly, maybe the UK woukd feel the need to fortify the Falklands if you didn't invade them without justification in the 80s. Really, if Argentina though they could get away with it, they would probably do so again.
Nah, I got it, I just thought that since you posted the story in a thread about but the Falklands it would pay to try and make it clear that we were not really talking about the Falklands lest we once again be swamped with discussion of such.
One needs to also factor in that Abe's party refuses to acknowledge any of the atrocities committed by the Japanese during World War II, from keeping it out of history textbooks to complaining about a statue commemorating comfort women in a Chinese-majority neighborhood in California, to badgering the biggest English-language Japanese newspaper to issue this tortured clarification/apology just the other day:
JFC that is chilling. That's right up there with the worst of Trump's anti-press crap.
This is why the push for militarization of Japan is so unnerving. Because it's hand-in-hand with their government refusing to acknowledge that they ever did anything in the first place to deserve all these restrictions on them. It's not just the politicians, either; the population at large doesn't know much about the crimes committed by Japanese troops during the war. (But we're veering a bit off-topic here, so I'll leave it at that.)
Petulant martyr syndrome is the cause of half the wars in the world. So many countries keep intricate account of the wrongs done to them and wipe the wrongs done by them from the history books.
One of the nice things about being British is to be comfortably in the wrong in every war save WW2. It helps with the potential for denial.
Eh, we did some stuff there too - just for old time's sake. Maybe the Falklands was OK...?
The Falklands was pointless grasping at the last shreds of Empire.
What the hell are you on about? The Falklands was Argentina deciding that because these islands are near us, they are obviously ours and the UK rightfully telling them to piss off.
Yeah the British obviously had the superior claim because the islands were much more near to them.
The Argentinian claim to the islands is obviously not super great, but that doesn't mean Badger isn't right that the war for the British was about the Empire. And it is certainly not true that the war was Argentina suddenly deciding the islands were theirs. That is such an ignorant summary of the historical conflict that it seems deliberate. Argentine had to be kicked out before the British established current rule! If we suppose that a history of original control is the relevant factor, the Argentinian claim is probably stronger than that of the British (who weren't even the first to colonize it).
If we're going to use words like "rightfully" it is probably best to be very clear what we mean by them.
No, it's snarky but entirely accurate. Any claim to the islands is colonial in nature. But mostly harmless because no one lived there. At the time of the war the Falklands was inhabited by UK subjects of UK descent who had no interest in Argentinian rule and had been in that state for like ... 150 years or so? The Argentinian invasion had zero legitimacy. Like seriously, what possible bullshit excuse can you come up with for it? In what possible way was the UK wrong for kicking the Argentinians out?
Which would be the more appropriate place to relocate this discussions since the US was not a party to the conflict.
Shryke, the Argentinians claimed (or whatever) the islands in 1820, when British rule was long gone and there was only a plaque left saying it. And then the UK kicked them out. At that time there were only a couple of people settled there of course, but Argentine was still the (colonial) ruler.
This is the basis of their claim, coupled with their independence from Spain granting them it. The Falklands war wasn't them deciding that these islands looked nice, it was them reclaiming territory they lost when they were a very young state. You could say that this is no rightfull claim, as I would, but then the UK claim isn't either. But to characterize the conflict as sudden greed vs principled defense, instead of another chapter in the history of a region always contested, is wrong. It is fine to say the UK wasn't in the wrong, but it is dumb to say it was totally in the right. (especially given the debate at the time)
And that basis is complete bullshit and in actual fact it's just an excuse for some Argentinian chest-thumping (as they did before and have done since) because the islands are, like, right there so clearly our claim is stronger even though the British have controlled and had a population on the island for over a century at that point. This is like claiming a british invasion of Virginia would have some legitimacy.
The strength of the claim is irrelevant. It wasn't worth fighting a war over. About 1,000 people died. Not a big war, but considering only about 3,000 people live there...
(Most of the casualties were armed forces, by the way, lest anyone think 1/3 of the islands were wiped out)
That's what I mean about "petulant martyr syndrome." Everyone always gets on their high horse and all rationality disappears.
The British were just feeling bad about the last shreds of empire slipping away.
Or, you know, someone actually invaded UK territory and it is the job of the government to protect it's citizens from shit like foreign invasion.
"Oh, it's not enough people to bother with" is a ridiculous position. What exactly is the minimum amount? Why should there be one exactly? This whoel stance is just bullshit revisionist history. Pulling a silly excuse from one's ass to try and paper over the fact that it's just a knee-jerk anti-colonialism viewpoint taken to the most ridiculous extreme. It must be wrong because the British can't be right when fighting a war!
Besides, the UK is going to be extremely desperate to make trade deals - and may even need direct aid drops if worst case predictions hold true - very soon. It would be a good time to make nice and start asking how much London wants for those islands.
Besides, the UK is going to be extremely desperate to make trade deals - and may even need direct aid drops if worst case predictions hold true - very soon. It would be a good time to make nice and start asking how much London wants for those islands.
That news is slightly out of date at this point.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
One needs to also factor in that Abe's party refuses to acknowledge any of the atrocities committed by the Japanese during World War II, from keeping it out of history textbooks to complaining about a statue commemorating comfort women in a Chinese-majority neighborhood in California, to badgering the biggest English-language Japanese newspaper to issue this tortured clarification/apology just the other day:
JFC that is chilling. That's right up there with the worst of Trump's anti-press crap.
This is why the push for militarization of Japan is so unnerving. Because it's hand-in-hand with their government refusing to acknowledge that they ever did anything in the first place to deserve all these restrictions on them. It's not just the politicians, either; the population at large doesn't know much about the crimes committed by Japanese troops during the war. (But we're veering a bit off-topic here, so I'll leave it at that.)
Petulant martyr syndrome is the cause of half the wars in the world. So many countries keep intricate account of the wrongs done to them and wipe the wrongs done by them from the history books.
One of the nice things about being British is to be comfortably in the wrong in every war save WW2. It helps with the potential for denial.
Eh, we did some stuff there too - just for old time's sake. Maybe the Falklands was OK...?
The Falklands was pointless grasping at the last shreds of Empire.
What the hell are you on about? The Falklands was Argentina deciding that because these islands are near us, they are obviously ours and the UK rightfully telling them to piss off.
Yeah the British obviously had the superior claim because the islands were much more near to them.
The Argentinian claim to the islands is obviously not super great, but that doesn't mean Badger isn't right that the war for the British was about the Empire. And it is certainly not true that the war was Argentina suddenly deciding the islands were theirs. That is such an ignorant summary of the historical conflict that it seems deliberate. Argentine had to be kicked out before the British established current rule! If we suppose that a history of original control is the relevant factor, the Argentinian claim is probably stronger than that of the British (who weren't even the first to colonize it).
If we're going to use words like "rightfully" it is probably best to be very clear what we mean by them.
No, it's snarky but entirely accurate. Any claim to the islands is colonial in nature. But mostly harmless because no one lived there. At the time of the war the Falklands was inhabited by UK subjects of UK descent who had no interest in Argentinian rule and had been in that state for like ... 150 years or so? The Argentinian invasion had zero legitimacy. Like seriously, what possible bullshit excuse can you come up with for it? In what possible way was the UK wrong for kicking the Argentinians out?
Which would be the more appropriate place to relocate this discussions since the US was not a party to the conflict.
Shryke, the Argentinians claimed (or whatever) the islands in 1820, when British rule was long gone and there was only a plaque left saying it. And then the UK kicked them out. At that time there were only a couple of people settled there of course, but Argentine was still the (colonial) ruler.
This is the basis of their claim, coupled with their independence from Spain granting them it. The Falklands war wasn't them deciding that these islands looked nice, it was them reclaiming territory they lost when they were a very young state. You could say that this is no rightfull claim, as I would, but then the UK claim isn't either. But to characterize the conflict as sudden greed vs principled defense, instead of another chapter in the history of a region always contested, is wrong. It is fine to say the UK wasn't in the wrong, but it is dumb to say it was totally in the right. (especially given the debate at the time)
And that basis is complete bullshit and in actual fact it's just an excuse for some Argentinian chest-thumping because the islands are, like, right there so clearly our claim is stronger even though the British have controlled and had a population on the island for over a century at that point. This is like claiming a british invasion of Virginia would have some legitimacy.
It is not any more bullshit than any other colonial claim. If the British kicked everyone out of Virginia and put their own settlers there for 100 years I would expect 0% Americans to go "well fair is fair, you guys did kick us out and have now lived there for a while so it's yours.". You can't call bullshit and then pretend that control and establishing a population is actually relevant. That is the basis of the claim!
like, are you saying that the British have the legit claim because they kept control for a long time? Is there some formula for determining the point where you have occupied a territory long enough that it is now yours?
(as I said, the sole (and morally right) reason that the Falklands should be part of the UK at the moment is that the people there want it. but that is also some shit given that they kicked out the previous people living there.) I am not saying Argentine is right, I'm saying I'm sympathetic to their claim given the opposing claims also made by the UK.
Besides, the UK is going to be extremely desperate to make trade deals - and may even need direct aid drops if worst case predictions hold true - very soon. It would be a good time to make nice and start asking how much London wants for those islands.
That news is slightly out of date at this point.
Ah. Just looked at the date. I thought was something from the G-20.
One needs to also factor in that Abe's party refuses to acknowledge any of the atrocities committed by the Japanese during World War II, from keeping it out of history textbooks to complaining about a statue commemorating comfort women in a Chinese-majority neighborhood in California, to badgering the biggest English-language Japanese newspaper to issue this tortured clarification/apology just the other day:
JFC that is chilling. That's right up there with the worst of Trump's anti-press crap.
This is why the push for militarization of Japan is so unnerving. Because it's hand-in-hand with their government refusing to acknowledge that they ever did anything in the first place to deserve all these restrictions on them. It's not just the politicians, either; the population at large doesn't know much about the crimes committed by Japanese troops during the war. (But we're veering a bit off-topic here, so I'll leave it at that.)
Petulant martyr syndrome is the cause of half the wars in the world. So many countries keep intricate account of the wrongs done to them and wipe the wrongs done by them from the history books.
One of the nice things about being British is to be comfortably in the wrong in every war save WW2. It helps with the potential for denial.
Eh, we did some stuff there too - just for old time's sake. Maybe the Falklands was OK...?
The Falklands was pointless grasping at the last shreds of Empire.
What the hell are you on about? The Falklands was Argentina deciding that because these islands are near us, they are obviously ours and the UK rightfully telling them to piss off.
Yeah the British obviously had the superior claim because the islands were much more near to them.
The Argentinian claim to the islands is obviously not super great, but that doesn't mean Badger isn't right that the war for the British was about the Empire. And it is certainly not true that the war was Argentina suddenly deciding the islands were theirs. That is such an ignorant summary of the historical conflict that it seems deliberate. Argentine had to be kicked out before the British established current rule! If we suppose that a history of original control is the relevant factor, the Argentinian claim is probably stronger than that of the British (who weren't even the first to colonize it).
If we're going to use words like "rightfully" it is probably best to be very clear what we mean by them.
No, it's snarky but entirely accurate. Any claim to the islands is colonial in nature. But mostly harmless because no one lived there. At the time of the war the Falklands was inhabited by UK subjects of UK descent who had no interest in Argentinian rule and had been in that state for like ... 150 years or so? The Argentinian invasion had zero legitimacy. Like seriously, what possible bullshit excuse can you come up with for it? In what possible way was the UK wrong for kicking the Argentinians out?
Which would be the more appropriate place to relocate this discussions since the US was not a party to the conflict.
Shryke, the Argentinians claimed (or whatever) the islands in 1820, when British rule was long gone and there was only a plaque left saying it. And then the UK kicked them out. At that time there were only a couple of people settled there of course, but Argentine was still the (colonial) ruler.
This is the basis of their claim, coupled with their independence from Spain granting them it. The Falklands war wasn't them deciding that these islands looked nice, it was them reclaiming territory they lost when they were a very young state. You could say that this is no rightfull claim, as I would, but then the UK claim isn't either. But to characterize the conflict as sudden greed vs principled defense, instead of another chapter in the history of a region always contested, is wrong. It is fine to say the UK wasn't in the wrong, but it is dumb to say it was totally in the right. (especially given the debate at the time)
And that basis is complete bullshit and in actual fact it's just an excuse for some Argentinian chest-thumping because the islands are, like, right there so clearly our claim is stronger even though the British have controlled and had a population on the island for over a century at that point. This is like claiming a british invasion of Virginia would have some legitimacy.
It is not any more bullshit than any other colonial claim. If the British kicked everyone out of Virginia and put their own settlers there for 100 years I would expect 0% Americans to go "well fair is fair, you guys did kick us out and have now lived there for a while so it's yours.". You can't call bullshit and then pretend that control and establishing a population is actually relevant. That is the basis of the claim!
like, are you saying that the British have the legit claim because they kept control for a long time?]Is there some formula for determining the point where you have occupied a territory long enough that it is now yours?
(as I said, the sole (and morally right) reason that the Falklands should be part of the UK at the moment is that the people there want it. but that is also some shit given that they kicked out the previous people living there.) I am not saying Argentine is right, I'm saying I'm sympathetic to their claim given the opposing claims also made by the UK.
Yes you silly goose, that is in fact one of the ways we decide who owns which parts of the world. We look at who the fuck lives there right now, how long they have lived there and how many there are. IT IS ENCODED INTO INTERNATIONAL LAW! THERE IS PRECEDENT AND EVERYTHING.
We don't look at random claims from 150 years ago, that where never enforced and where left dormant except for periods when the claimant nation needs to look good domestically. We certainly don't accept claims made at gunpoint, without even requesting the International Court or the UN for a judgment.
Like get off your high goddamn horse. Just cause you don't like the British, doesn't mean they where wrong. Like look up the Svaldbard Treaty, or the Norwegian/Danish dispute over the Ownership of Greenland. They are surprisingly relevant.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
One needs to also factor in that Abe's party refuses to acknowledge any of the atrocities committed by the Japanese during World War II, from keeping it out of history textbooks to complaining about a statue commemorating comfort women in a Chinese-majority neighborhood in California, to badgering the biggest English-language Japanese newspaper to issue this tortured clarification/apology just the other day:
JFC that is chilling. That's right up there with the worst of Trump's anti-press crap.
This is why the push for militarization of Japan is so unnerving. Because it's hand-in-hand with their government refusing to acknowledge that they ever did anything in the first place to deserve all these restrictions on them. It's not just the politicians, either; the population at large doesn't know much about the crimes committed by Japanese troops during the war. (But we're veering a bit off-topic here, so I'll leave it at that.)
Petulant martyr syndrome is the cause of half the wars in the world. So many countries keep intricate account of the wrongs done to them and wipe the wrongs done by them from the history books.
One of the nice things about being British is to be comfortably in the wrong in every war save WW2. It helps with the potential for denial.
Eh, we did some stuff there too - just for old time's sake. Maybe the Falklands was OK...?
The Falklands was pointless grasping at the last shreds of Empire.
What the hell are you on about? The Falklands was Argentina deciding that because these islands are near us, they are obviously ours and the UK rightfully telling them to piss off.
Yeah the British obviously had the superior claim because the islands were much more near to them.
The Argentinian claim to the islands is obviously not super great, but that doesn't mean Badger isn't right that the war for the British was about the Empire. And it is certainly not true that the war was Argentina suddenly deciding the islands were theirs. That is such an ignorant summary of the historical conflict that it seems deliberate. Argentine had to be kicked out before the British established current rule! If we suppose that a history of original control is the relevant factor, the Argentinian claim is probably stronger than that of the British (who weren't even the first to colonize it).
If we're going to use words like "rightfully" it is probably best to be very clear what we mean by them.
No, it's snarky but entirely accurate. Any claim to the islands is colonial in nature. But mostly harmless because no one lived there. At the time of the war the Falklands was inhabited by UK subjects of UK descent who had no interest in Argentinian rule and had been in that state for like ... 150 years or so? The Argentinian invasion had zero legitimacy. Like seriously, what possible bullshit excuse can you come up with for it? In what possible way was the UK wrong for kicking the Argentinians out?
Which would be the more appropriate place to relocate this discussions since the US was not a party to the conflict.
Shryke, the Argentinians claimed (or whatever) the islands in 1820, when British rule was long gone and there was only a plaque left saying it. And then the UK kicked them out. At that time there were only a couple of people settled there of course, but Argentine was still the (colonial) ruler.
This is the basis of their claim, coupled with their independence from Spain granting them it. The Falklands war wasn't them deciding that these islands looked nice, it was them reclaiming territory they lost when they were a very young state. You could say that this is no rightfull claim, as I would, but then the UK claim isn't either. But to characterize the conflict as sudden greed vs principled defense, instead of another chapter in the history of a region always contested, is wrong. It is fine to say the UK wasn't in the wrong, but it is dumb to say it was totally in the right. (especially given the debate at the time)
And that basis is complete bullshit and in actual fact it's just an excuse for some Argentinian chest-thumping because the islands are, like, right there so clearly our claim is stronger even though the British have controlled and had a population on the island for over a century at that point. This is like claiming a british invasion of Virginia would have some legitimacy.
It is not any more bullshit than any other colonial claim. If the British kicked everyone out of Virginia and put their own settlers there for 100 years I would expect 0% Americans to go "well fair is fair, you guys did kick us out and have now lived there for a while so it's yours.". You can't call bullshit and then pretend that control and establishing a population is actually relevant. That is the basis of the claim!
like, are you saying that the British have the legit claim because they kept control for a long time? Is there some formula for determining the point where you have occupied a territory long enough that it is now yours?
(as I said, the sole (and morally right) reason that the Falklands should be part of the UK at the moment is that the people there want it. but that is also some shit given that they kicked out the previous people living there.) I am not saying Argentine is right, I'm saying I'm sympathetic to their claim given the opposing claims also made by the UK.
Wait, so does this mean we can have Virginia back, before returning it to the native tribes? Clearly there is a legitimacy to claims based on how long people have been there, and who is there now.
As for the Falklands, the previous people there weren't kicked out anywhere.
One needs to also factor in that Abe's party refuses to acknowledge any of the atrocities committed by the Japanese during World War II, from keeping it out of history textbooks to complaining about a statue commemorating comfort women in a Chinese-majority neighborhood in California, to badgering the biggest English-language Japanese newspaper to issue this tortured clarification/apology just the other day:
JFC that is chilling. That's right up there with the worst of Trump's anti-press crap.
This is why the push for militarization of Japan is so unnerving. Because it's hand-in-hand with their government refusing to acknowledge that they ever did anything in the first place to deserve all these restrictions on them. It's not just the politicians, either; the population at large doesn't know much about the crimes committed by Japanese troops during the war. (But we're veering a bit off-topic here, so I'll leave it at that.)
Petulant martyr syndrome is the cause of half the wars in the world. So many countries keep intricate account of the wrongs done to them and wipe the wrongs done by them from the history books.
One of the nice things about being British is to be comfortably in the wrong in every war save WW2. It helps with the potential for denial.
Eh, we did some stuff there too - just for old time's sake. Maybe the Falklands was OK...?
The Falklands was pointless grasping at the last shreds of Empire.
What the hell are you on about? The Falklands was Argentina deciding that because these islands are near us, they are obviously ours and the UK rightfully telling them to piss off.
Yeah the British obviously had the superior claim because the islands were much more near to them.
The Argentinian claim to the islands is obviously not super great, but that doesn't mean Badger isn't right that the war for the British was about the Empire. And it is certainly not true that the war was Argentina suddenly deciding the islands were theirs. That is such an ignorant summary of the historical conflict that it seems deliberate. Argentine had to be kicked out before the British established current rule! If we suppose that a history of original control is the relevant factor, the Argentinian claim is probably stronger than that of the British (who weren't even the first to colonize it).
If we're going to use words like "rightfully" it is probably best to be very clear what we mean by them.
No, it's snarky but entirely accurate. Any claim to the islands is colonial in nature. But mostly harmless because no one lived there. At the time of the war the Falklands was inhabited by UK subjects of UK descent who had no interest in Argentinian rule and had been in that state for like ... 150 years or so? The Argentinian invasion had zero legitimacy. Like seriously, what possible bullshit excuse can you come up with for it? In what possible way was the UK wrong for kicking the Argentinians out?
Which would be the more appropriate place to relocate this discussions since the US was not a party to the conflict.
Shryke, the Argentinians claimed (or whatever) the islands in 1820, when British rule was long gone and there was only a plaque left saying it. And then the UK kicked them out. At that time there were only a couple of people settled there of course, but Argentine was still the (colonial) ruler.
This is the basis of their claim, coupled with their independence from Spain granting them it. The Falklands war wasn't them deciding that these islands looked nice, it was them reclaiming territory they lost when they were a very young state. You could say that this is no rightfull claim, as I would, but then the UK claim isn't either. But to characterize the conflict as sudden greed vs principled defense, instead of another chapter in the history of a region always contested, is wrong. It is fine to say the UK wasn't in the wrong, but it is dumb to say it was totally in the right. (especially given the debate at the time)
And that basis is complete bullshit and in actual fact it's just an excuse for some Argentinian chest-thumping because the islands are, like, right there so clearly our claim is stronger even though the British have controlled and had a population on the island for over a century at that point. This is like claiming a british invasion of Virginia would have some legitimacy.
It is not any more bullshit than any other colonial claim. If the British kicked everyone out of Virginia and put their own settlers there for 100 years I would expect 0% Americans to go "well fair is fair, you guys did kick us out and have now lived there for a while so it's yours.". You can't call bullshit and then pretend that control and establishing a population is actually relevant. That is the basis of the claim!
like, are you saying that the British have the legit claim because they kept control for a long time? Is there some formula for determining the point where you have occupied a territory long enough that it is now yours?
(as I said, the sole (and morally right) reason that the Falklands should be part of the UK at the moment is that the people there want it. but that is also some shit given that they kicked out the previous people living there.) I am not saying Argentine is right, I'm saying I'm sympathetic to their claim given the opposing claims also made by the UK.
Wait, so you are suggesting the British could invade the US east coast and this would be fine? At some point you should stop and really think about what you are saying here.
Your entire claim here is patently ridiculous. It was UK territory inhabited by descendants of settlers from the UK who wanted to stay within the UK.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
One needs to also factor in that Abe's party refuses to acknowledge any of the atrocities committed by the Japanese during World War II, from keeping it out of history textbooks to complaining about a statue commemorating comfort women in a Chinese-majority neighborhood in California, to badgering the biggest English-language Japanese newspaper to issue this tortured clarification/apology just the other day:
JFC that is chilling. That's right up there with the worst of Trump's anti-press crap.
This is why the push for militarization of Japan is so unnerving. Because it's hand-in-hand with their government refusing to acknowledge that they ever did anything in the first place to deserve all these restrictions on them. It's not just the politicians, either; the population at large doesn't know much about the crimes committed by Japanese troops during the war. (But we're veering a bit off-topic here, so I'll leave it at that.)
Petulant martyr syndrome is the cause of half the wars in the world. So many countries keep intricate account of the wrongs done to them and wipe the wrongs done by them from the history books.
One of the nice things about being British is to be comfortably in the wrong in every war save WW2. It helps with the potential for denial.
Eh, we did some stuff there too - just for old time's sake. Maybe the Falklands was OK...?
The Falklands was pointless grasping at the last shreds of Empire.
What the hell are you on about? The Falklands was Argentina deciding that because these islands are near us, they are obviously ours and the UK rightfully telling them to piss off.
Yeah the British obviously had the superior claim because the islands were much more near to them.
The Argentinian claim to the islands is obviously not super great, but that doesn't mean Badger isn't right that the war for the British was about the Empire. And it is certainly not true that the war was Argentina suddenly deciding the islands were theirs. That is such an ignorant summary of the historical conflict that it seems deliberate. Argentine had to be kicked out before the British established current rule! If we suppose that a history of original control is the relevant factor, the Argentinian claim is probably stronger than that of the British (who weren't even the first to colonize it).
If we're going to use words like "rightfully" it is probably best to be very clear what we mean by them.
No, it's snarky but entirely accurate. Any claim to the islands is colonial in nature. But mostly harmless because no one lived there. At the time of the war the Falklands was inhabited by UK subjects of UK descent who had no interest in Argentinian rule and had been in that state for like ... 150 years or so? The Argentinian invasion had zero legitimacy. Like seriously, what possible bullshit excuse can you come up with for it? In what possible way was the UK wrong for kicking the Argentinians out?
Which would be the more appropriate place to relocate this discussions since the US was not a party to the conflict.
Shryke, the Argentinians claimed (or whatever) the islands in 1820, when British rule was long gone and there was only a plaque left saying it. And then the UK kicked them out. At that time there were only a couple of people settled there of course, but Argentine was still the (colonial) ruler.
This is the basis of their claim, coupled with their independence from Spain granting them it. The Falklands war wasn't them deciding that these islands looked nice, it was them reclaiming territory they lost when they were a very young state. You could say that this is no rightfull claim, as I would, but then the UK claim isn't either. But to characterize the conflict as sudden greed vs principled defense, instead of another chapter in the history of a region always contested, is wrong. It is fine to say the UK wasn't in the wrong, but it is dumb to say it was totally in the right. (especially given the debate at the time)
And that basis is complete bullshit and in actual fact it's just an excuse for some Argentinian chest-thumping because the islands are, like, right there so clearly our claim is stronger even though the British have controlled and had a population on the island for over a century at that point. This is like claiming a british invasion of Virginia would have some legitimacy.
It is not any more bullshit than any other colonial claim. If the British kicked everyone out of Virginia and put their own settlers there for 100 years I would expect 0% Americans to go "well fair is fair, you guys did kick us out and have now lived there for a while so it's yours.". You can't call bullshit and then pretend that control and establishing a population is actually relevant. That is the basis of the claim!
like, are you saying that the British have the legit claim because they kept control for a long time?]Is there some formula for determining the point where you have occupied a territory long enough that it is now yours?
(as I said, the sole (and morally right) reason that the Falklands should be part of the UK at the moment is that the people there want it. but that is also some shit given that they kicked out the previous people living there.) I am not saying Argentine is right, I'm saying I'm sympathetic to their claim given the opposing claims also made by the UK.
Yes you silly goose, that is in fact one of the ways we decide who owns which parts of the world. We look at who the fuck lives there right now, how long they have lived there and how many there are. IT IS ENCODED INTO INTERNATIONAL LAW! THERE IS PRECEDENT AND EVERYTHING.
We don't look at random claims from 150 years ago, that where never enforced and where left dormant except for periods when the claimant nation needs to look good domestically. We certainly don't accept claims made at gunpoint, without even requesting the International Court or the UN for a judgment.
Like get off your high goddamn horse. Just cause you don't like the British, doesn't mean they where wrong. Like look up the Svaldbard Treaty, or the Norwegian/Danish dispute over the Ownership of Greenland. They are surprisingly relevant.
Did you not read the last part of my post?
i mean, you're totally wrong which should be somewhat obvious given that the Falkland Islands status is still disputed. They aren't officially recognized as part of the UK by most nations, including the US. The most common position is that it should still be negotiated. The correct way to settle territorial disputes is in fact NOT encoded into international law. There is in fact no clear precedent. And even if we would apply the Montevideo Convention to a territorial dispute, the length of time living there and the amount of people living there are not relevant. The only actually established relevant international law bit is, as I mentioned, the right to self determination. The fact that the people there want to be part of the UK is why they should be.
re the bolded: That is in fact part of the UK claim. They literally abandoned the whole thing for 61 years but argue that they left a plaque saying they owned it.
Did you read mine? Or anybody else's? Or did you run off to google something that would give you a leg to stand on?
the Montevideo convention is an American Convention(as in a continental one). The UK isn't a signatory. Its not even relevant because it only deals with the colonial borders prior to independence.
The Falklands islands isn't considered a part of the UK, true. But it is considered an Overseas Territory. Something that is recognized by most nations, including the US. Guam for instance is not a part of the US, but an Overseas Territory. Want to claim it?
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
+1
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
Did you read mine? Or anybody else's? Or did you run off to google something that would give you a leg to stand on?
the Montevideo convention is an American Convention(as in a continental one). The UK isn't a signatory. Its not even relevant because it only deals with the colonial borders prior to independence.
The Falklands islands isn't considered a part of the UK, true. But it is considered an Overseas Territory. Something that is recognized by most nations, including the US. Guam for instance is not a part of the US, but an Overseas Territory. Want to claim it?
I mean i wouldn't not support their claim to independence.
but also, no, the Falklands islands aren't actually recognized. Sovereignity over Overseas Territories gets disputed, Spain still claims Gibraltar should be theirs, but on the islands specifically the US remains neutral. And the UN has put them, and Gibraltar for that matter, on the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Jurisdiction is recognized of course, these places are not lawless. But like Taiwan and other places they are not actually recognized as such.
like, I brought up the Montevideo convention because it seemed the only thing close to your claims about international law. I know international law. It can be characterized by it covering very little. It certainly doesn't settle territorial disputes in the simplistic matter you suggest, that would be far too sensible and altruistic.
Guam, American Samoa and the Virgin Islands are also on the list for the record. It's a list of remaining colonies pretty much.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
One needs to also factor in that Abe's party refuses to acknowledge any of the atrocities committed by the Japanese during World War II, from keeping it out of history textbooks to complaining about a statue commemorating comfort women in a Chinese-majority neighborhood in California, to badgering the biggest English-language Japanese newspaper to issue this tortured clarification/apology just the other day:
JFC that is chilling. That's right up there with the worst of Trump's anti-press crap.
This is why the push for militarization of Japan is so unnerving. Because it's hand-in-hand with their government refusing to acknowledge that they ever did anything in the first place to deserve all these restrictions on them. It's not just the politicians, either; the population at large doesn't know much about the crimes committed by Japanese troops during the war. (But we're veering a bit off-topic here, so I'll leave it at that.)
Petulant martyr syndrome is the cause of half the wars in the world. So many countries keep intricate account of the wrongs done to them and wipe the wrongs done by them from the history books.
One of the nice things about being British is to be comfortably in the wrong in every war save WW2. It helps with the potential for denial.
Eh, we did some stuff there too - just for old time's sake. Maybe the Falklands was OK...?
The Falklands was pointless grasping at the last shreds of Empire.
What the hell are you on about? The Falklands was Argentina deciding that because these islands are near us, they are obviously ours and the UK rightfully telling them to piss off.
Yeah the British obviously had the superior claim because the islands were much more near to them.
The Argentinian claim to the islands is obviously not super great, but that doesn't mean Badger isn't right that the war for the British was about the Empire. And it is certainly not true that the war was Argentina suddenly deciding the islands were theirs. That is such an ignorant summary of the historical conflict that it seems deliberate. Argentine had to be kicked out before the British established current rule! If we suppose that a history of original control is the relevant factor, the Argentinian claim is probably stronger than that of the British (who weren't even the first to colonize it).
If we're going to use words like "rightfully" it is probably best to be very clear what we mean by them.
No, it's snarky but entirely accurate. Any claim to the islands is colonial in nature. But mostly harmless because no one lived there. At the time of the war the Falklands was inhabited by UK subjects of UK descent who had no interest in Argentinian rule and had been in that state for like ... 150 years or so? The Argentinian invasion had zero legitimacy. Like seriously, what possible bullshit excuse can you come up with for it? In what possible way was the UK wrong for kicking the Argentinians out?
Which would be the more appropriate place to relocate this discussions since the US was not a party to the conflict.
Shryke, the Argentinians claimed (or whatever) the islands in 1820, when British rule was long gone and there was only a plaque left saying it. And then the UK kicked them out. At that time there were only a couple of people settled there of course, but Argentine was still the (colonial) ruler.
This is the basis of their claim, coupled with their independence from Spain granting them it. The Falklands war wasn't them deciding that these islands looked nice, it was them reclaiming territory they lost when they were a very young state. You could say that this is no rightfull claim, as I would, but then the UK claim isn't either. But to characterize the conflict as sudden greed vs principled defense, instead of another chapter in the history of a region always contested, is wrong. It is fine to say the UK wasn't in the wrong, but it is dumb to say it was totally in the right. (especially given the debate at the time)
And that basis is complete bullshit and in actual fact it's just an excuse for some Argentinian chest-thumping because the islands are, like, right there so clearly our claim is stronger even though the British have controlled and had a population on the island for over a century at that point. This is like claiming a british invasion of Virginia would have some legitimacy.
It is not any more bullshit than any other colonial claim. If the British kicked everyone out of Virginia and put their own settlers there for 100 years I would expect 0% Americans to go "well fair is fair, you guys did kick us out and have now lived there for a while so it's yours.". You can't call bullshit and then pretend that control and establishing a population is actually relevant. That is the basis of the claim!
like, are you saying that the British have the legit claim because they kept control for a long time? Is there some formula for determining the point where you have occupied a territory long enough that it is now yours?
(as I said, the sole (and morally right) reason that the Falklands should be part of the UK at the moment is that the people there want it. but that is also some shit given that they kicked out the previous people living there.) I am not saying Argentine is right, I'm saying I'm sympathetic to their claim given the opposing claims also made by the UK.
Wait, so you are suggesting the British could invade the US east coast and this would be fine?
One needs to also factor in that Abe's party refuses to acknowledge any of the atrocities committed by the Japanese during World War II, from keeping it out of history textbooks to complaining about a statue commemorating comfort women in a Chinese-majority neighborhood in California, to badgering the biggest English-language Japanese newspaper to issue this tortured clarification/apology just the other day:
JFC that is chilling. That's right up there with the worst of Trump's anti-press crap.
This is why the push for militarization of Japan is so unnerving. Because it's hand-in-hand with their government refusing to acknowledge that they ever did anything in the first place to deserve all these restrictions on them. It's not just the politicians, either; the population at large doesn't know much about the crimes committed by Japanese troops during the war. (But we're veering a bit off-topic here, so I'll leave it at that.)
Petulant martyr syndrome is the cause of half the wars in the world. So many countries keep intricate account of the wrongs done to them and wipe the wrongs done by them from the history books.
One of the nice things about being British is to be comfortably in the wrong in every war save WW2. It helps with the potential for denial.
Eh, we did some stuff there too - just for old time's sake. Maybe the Falklands was OK...?
The Falklands was pointless grasping at the last shreds of Empire.
What the hell are you on about? The Falklands was Argentina deciding that because these islands are near us, they are obviously ours and the UK rightfully telling them to piss off.
Yeah the British obviously had the superior claim because the islands were much more near to them.
The Argentinian claim to the islands is obviously not super great, but that doesn't mean Badger isn't right that the war for the British was about the Empire. And it is certainly not true that the war was Argentina suddenly deciding the islands were theirs. That is such an ignorant summary of the historical conflict that it seems deliberate. Argentine had to be kicked out before the British established current rule! If we suppose that a history of original control is the relevant factor, the Argentinian claim is probably stronger than that of the British (who weren't even the first to colonize it).
If we're going to use words like "rightfully" it is probably best to be very clear what we mean by them.
No, it's snarky but entirely accurate. Any claim to the islands is colonial in nature. But mostly harmless because no one lived there. At the time of the war the Falklands was inhabited by UK subjects of UK descent who had no interest in Argentinian rule and had been in that state for like ... 150 years or so? The Argentinian invasion had zero legitimacy. Like seriously, what possible bullshit excuse can you come up with for it? In what possible way was the UK wrong for kicking the Argentinians out?
Which would be the more appropriate place to relocate this discussions since the US was not a party to the conflict.
Shryke, the Argentinians claimed (or whatever) the islands in 1820, when British rule was long gone and there was only a plaque left saying it. And then the UK kicked them out. At that time there were only a couple of people settled there of course, but Argentine was still the (colonial) ruler.
This is the basis of their claim, coupled with their independence from Spain granting them it. The Falklands war wasn't them deciding that these islands looked nice, it was them reclaiming territory they lost when they were a very young state. You could say that this is no rightfull claim, as I would, but then the UK claim isn't either. But to characterize the conflict as sudden greed vs principled defense, instead of another chapter in the history of a region always contested, is wrong. It is fine to say the UK wasn't in the wrong, but it is dumb to say it was totally in the right. (especially given the debate at the time)
And that basis is complete bullshit and in actual fact it's just an excuse for some Argentinian chest-thumping because the islands are, like, right there so clearly our claim is stronger even though the British have controlled and had a population on the island for over a century at that point. This is like claiming a british invasion of Virginia would have some legitimacy.
It is not any more bullshit than any other colonial claim. If the British kicked everyone out of Virginia and put their own settlers there for 100 years I would expect 0% Americans to go "well fair is fair, you guys did kick us out and have now lived there for a while so it's yours.". You can't call bullshit and then pretend that control and establishing a population is actually relevant. That is the basis of the claim!
like, are you saying that the British have the legit claim because they kept control for a long time? Is there some formula for determining the point where you have occupied a territory long enough that it is now yours?
(as I said, the sole (and morally right) reason that the Falklands should be part of the UK at the moment is that the people there want it. but that is also some shit given that they kicked out the previous people living there.) I am not saying Argentine is right, I'm saying I'm sympathetic to their claim given the opposing claims also made by the UK.
Wait, so you are suggesting the British could invade the US east coast and this would be fine?
no.
But they used to own it. This is literally the only criteria you've established for the legitimacy of the Argentinian invasion. So why the sudden waffling?
I think it's worth mentioning that all of these semantics that are being trotted out for this round of "Falklands sovereignty discussion round X" were pretty much discussed 6 years ago in this very thread.
Like, I feel like I could go back 13 pages and just quote things I and others wrote then rather then put in the effort to type out responses and still come out on top.
+1
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
One needs to also factor in that Abe's party refuses to acknowledge any of the atrocities committed by the Japanese during World War II, from keeping it out of history textbooks to complaining about a statue commemorating comfort women in a Chinese-majority neighborhood in California, to badgering the biggest English-language Japanese newspaper to issue this tortured clarification/apology just the other day:
JFC that is chilling. That's right up there with the worst of Trump's anti-press crap.
This is why the push for militarization of Japan is so unnerving. Because it's hand-in-hand with their government refusing to acknowledge that they ever did anything in the first place to deserve all these restrictions on them. It's not just the politicians, either; the population at large doesn't know much about the crimes committed by Japanese troops during the war. (But we're veering a bit off-topic here, so I'll leave it at that.)
Petulant martyr syndrome is the cause of half the wars in the world. So many countries keep intricate account of the wrongs done to them and wipe the wrongs done by them from the history books.
One of the nice things about being British is to be comfortably in the wrong in every war save WW2. It helps with the potential for denial.
Eh, we did some stuff there too - just for old time's sake. Maybe the Falklands was OK...?
The Falklands was pointless grasping at the last shreds of Empire.
What the hell are you on about? The Falklands was Argentina deciding that because these islands are near us, they are obviously ours and the UK rightfully telling them to piss off.
Yeah the British obviously had the superior claim because the islands were much more near to them.
The Argentinian claim to the islands is obviously not super great, but that doesn't mean Badger isn't right that the war for the British was about the Empire. And it is certainly not true that the war was Argentina suddenly deciding the islands were theirs. That is such an ignorant summary of the historical conflict that it seems deliberate. Argentine had to be kicked out before the British established current rule! If we suppose that a history of original control is the relevant factor, the Argentinian claim is probably stronger than that of the British (who weren't even the first to colonize it).
If we're going to use words like "rightfully" it is probably best to be very clear what we mean by them.
No, it's snarky but entirely accurate. Any claim to the islands is colonial in nature. But mostly harmless because no one lived there. At the time of the war the Falklands was inhabited by UK subjects of UK descent who had no interest in Argentinian rule and had been in that state for like ... 150 years or so? The Argentinian invasion had zero legitimacy. Like seriously, what possible bullshit excuse can you come up with for it? In what possible way was the UK wrong for kicking the Argentinians out?
Which would be the more appropriate place to relocate this discussions since the US was not a party to the conflict.
Shryke, the Argentinians claimed (or whatever) the islands in 1820, when British rule was long gone and there was only a plaque left saying it. And then the UK kicked them out. At that time there were only a couple of people settled there of course, but Argentine was still the (colonial) ruler.
This is the basis of their claim, coupled with their independence from Spain granting them it. The Falklands war wasn't them deciding that these islands looked nice, it was them reclaiming territory they lost when they were a very young state. You could say that this is no rightfull claim, as I would, but then the UK claim isn't either. But to characterize the conflict as sudden greed vs principled defense, instead of another chapter in the history of a region always contested, is wrong. It is fine to say the UK wasn't in the wrong, but it is dumb to say it was totally in the right. (especially given the debate at the time)
And that basis is complete bullshit and in actual fact it's just an excuse for some Argentinian chest-thumping because the islands are, like, right there so clearly our claim is stronger even though the British have controlled and had a population on the island for over a century at that point. This is like claiming a british invasion of Virginia would have some legitimacy.
It is not any more bullshit than any other colonial claim. If the British kicked everyone out of Virginia and put their own settlers there for 100 years I would expect 0% Americans to go "well fair is fair, you guys did kick us out and have now lived there for a while so it's yours.". You can't call bullshit and then pretend that control and establishing a population is actually relevant. That is the basis of the claim!
like, are you saying that the British have the legit claim because they kept control for a long time? Is there some formula for determining the point where you have occupied a territory long enough that it is now yours?
(as I said, the sole (and morally right) reason that the Falklands should be part of the UK at the moment is that the people there want it. but that is also some shit given that they kicked out the previous people living there.) I am not saying Argentine is right, I'm saying I'm sympathetic to their claim given the opposing claims also made by the UK.
Wait, so you are suggesting the British could invade the US east coast and this would be fine?
no.
But they used to own it. This is literally the only criteria you've established for the legitimacy of the Argentinian invasion. So why the sudden waffling?
I never said the Argentinian invasion was fine. It was obviously wrong, even if war over territory was not itself illegitimate anyway. War is generally not justified.
My point is that you and others, and the UK, are defending the UK for illegitimate reasons. Because Argentine has equally valid illegitimate reasons for their claim. I am saying that it doesn't matter who was there first. It doesn't matter that you settled more people there. Leaving a plaque doesn't matter. Saying you are now the owner of all of Spain's previous territories in the region doesn't matter. Winning the conflict doesn't matter.
The reason the British invading the US east coast is wrong, is that the people living there do not want that. Sure they killed everyone who would want that way back, but that doesn't change what should happen now. We can't travel back in time, and should try getting over old grudges. Those don't matter. The (UN recognized) right to self-determination matters.
The claim of the Falklanders to being part of the British commonwealth is that they lived their for 150 years and actually predate the formation of the Argentina.
Further the islands are 1521 KM away from Argentina; this is well and truly outside of what is accepted as territorial waters (hilariously though, the islands are about the same distance from Chile, so logically they should have about as much claim to the islands).
One needs to also factor in that Abe's party refuses to acknowledge any of the atrocities committed by the Japanese during World War II, from keeping it out of history textbooks to complaining about a statue commemorating comfort women in a Chinese-majority neighborhood in California, to badgering the biggest English-language Japanese newspaper to issue this tortured clarification/apology just the other day:
JFC that is chilling. That's right up there with the worst of Trump's anti-press crap.
This is why the push for militarization of Japan is so unnerving. Because it's hand-in-hand with their government refusing to acknowledge that they ever did anything in the first place to deserve all these restrictions on them. It's not just the politicians, either; the population at large doesn't know much about the crimes committed by Japanese troops during the war. (But we're veering a bit off-topic here, so I'll leave it at that.)
Petulant martyr syndrome is the cause of half the wars in the world. So many countries keep intricate account of the wrongs done to them and wipe the wrongs done by them from the history books.
One of the nice things about being British is to be comfortably in the wrong in every war save WW2. It helps with the potential for denial.
Eh, we did some stuff there too - just for old time's sake. Maybe the Falklands was OK...?
The Falklands was pointless grasping at the last shreds of Empire.
What the hell are you on about? The Falklands was Argentina deciding that because these islands are near us, they are obviously ours and the UK rightfully telling them to piss off.
Yeah the British obviously had the superior claim because the islands were much more near to them.
The Argentinian claim to the islands is obviously not super great, but that doesn't mean Badger isn't right that the war for the British was about the Empire. And it is certainly not true that the war was Argentina suddenly deciding the islands were theirs. That is such an ignorant summary of the historical conflict that it seems deliberate. Argentine had to be kicked out before the British established current rule! If we suppose that a history of original control is the relevant factor, the Argentinian claim is probably stronger than that of the British (who weren't even the first to colonize it).
If we're going to use words like "rightfully" it is probably best to be very clear what we mean by them.
No, it's snarky but entirely accurate. Any claim to the islands is colonial in nature. But mostly harmless because no one lived there. At the time of the war the Falklands was inhabited by UK subjects of UK descent who had no interest in Argentinian rule and had been in that state for like ... 150 years or so? The Argentinian invasion had zero legitimacy. Like seriously, what possible bullshit excuse can you come up with for it? In what possible way was the UK wrong for kicking the Argentinians out?
Which would be the more appropriate place to relocate this discussions since the US was not a party to the conflict.
Shryke, the Argentinians claimed (or whatever) the islands in 1820, when British rule was long gone and there was only a plaque left saying it. And then the UK kicked them out. At that time there were only a couple of people settled there of course, but Argentine was still the (colonial) ruler.
This is the basis of their claim, coupled with their independence from Spain granting them it. The Falklands war wasn't them deciding that these islands looked nice, it was them reclaiming territory they lost when they were a very young state. You could say that this is no rightfull claim, as I would, but then the UK claim isn't either. But to characterize the conflict as sudden greed vs principled defense, instead of another chapter in the history of a region always contested, is wrong. It is fine to say the UK wasn't in the wrong, but it is dumb to say it was totally in the right. (especially given the debate at the time)
And that basis is complete bullshit and in actual fact it's just an excuse for some Argentinian chest-thumping because the islands are, like, right there so clearly our claim is stronger even though the British have controlled and had a population on the island for over a century at that point. This is like claiming a british invasion of Virginia would have some legitimacy.
It is not any more bullshit than any other colonial claim. If the British kicked everyone out of Virginia and put their own settlers there for 100 years I would expect 0% Americans to go "well fair is fair, you guys did kick us out and have now lived there for a while so it's yours.". You can't call bullshit and then pretend that control and establishing a population is actually relevant. That is the basis of the claim!
like, are you saying that the British have the legit claim because they kept control for a long time? Is there some formula for determining the point where you have occupied a territory long enough that it is now yours?
(as I said, the sole (and morally right) reason that the Falklands should be part of the UK at the moment is that the people there want it. but that is also some shit given that they kicked out the previous people living there.) I am not saying Argentine is right, I'm saying I'm sympathetic to their claim given the opposing claims also made by the UK.
Wait, so you are suggesting the British could invade the US east coast and this would be fine?
no.
But they used to own it. This is literally the only criteria you've established for the legitimacy of the Argentinian invasion. So why the sudden waffling?
I never said the Argentinian invasion was fine. It was obviously wrong, even if war over territory was not itself illegitimate anyway. War is generally not justified.
My point is that you and others, and the UK, are defending the UK for illegitimate reasons. Because Argentine has equally valid illegitimate reasons for their claim. I am saying that it doesn't matter who was there first. It doesn't matter that you settled more people there. Leaving a plaque doesn't matter. Saying you are now the owner of all of Spain's previous territories in the region doesn't matter. Winning the conflict doesn't matter.
The reason the British invading the US east coast is wrong, is that the people living there do not want that. Sure they killed everyone who would want that way back, but that doesn't change what should happen now. We can't travel back in time, and should try getting over old grudges. Those don't matter. The (UN recognized) right to self-determination matters.
No they aren't. Despite your refusal to acknowledge the basic facts of the matter, it remains true that the islands were UK territory inhabited by subjects of the UK government who very much wanted to remain part of the UK's territories. This is the opposite of illegitimate.
Argentina had no foot to stand on invading and the UK was not just within their rights to kick them out but essentially obligated by their responsibility to the UK subjects living there.
Posts
- John Stuart Mill
And the "militarization of the South Atlantic"? Well by golly, maybe the UK woukd feel the need to fortify the Falklands if you didn't invade them without justification in the 80s. Really, if Argentina though they could get away with it, they would probably do so again.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-28587653
The Ruffo clause seems to be key
Oddly enough not all Argentinian issues involve Britain, although if you are in a portal from the 1930s you might be right
Nah, I got it, I just thought that since you posted the story in a thread about but the Falklands it would pay to try and make it clear that we were not really talking about the Falklands lest we once again be swamped with discussion of such.
There was a time when it wasn't?
And that basis is complete bullshit and in actual fact it's just an excuse for some Argentinian chest-thumping (as they did before and have done since) because the islands are, like, right there so clearly our claim is stronger even though the British have controlled and had a population on the island for over a century at that point. This is like claiming a british invasion of Virginia would have some legitimacy.
Or, you know, someone actually invaded UK territory and it is the job of the government to protect it's citizens from shit like foreign invasion.
"Oh, it's not enough people to bother with" is a ridiculous position. What exactly is the minimum amount? Why should there be one exactly? This whoel stance is just bullshit revisionist history. Pulling a silly excuse from one's ass to try and paper over the fact that it's just a knee-jerk anti-colonialism viewpoint taken to the most ridiculous extreme. It must be wrong because the British can't be right when fighting a war!
Besides, the UK is going to be extremely desperate to make trade deals - and may even need direct aid drops if worst case predictions hold true - very soon. It would be a good time to make nice and start asking how much London wants for those islands.
That news is slightly out of date at this point.
It is not any more bullshit than any other colonial claim. If the British kicked everyone out of Virginia and put their own settlers there for 100 years I would expect 0% Americans to go "well fair is fair, you guys did kick us out and have now lived there for a while so it's yours.". You can't call bullshit and then pretend that control and establishing a population is actually relevant. That is the basis of the claim!
like, are you saying that the British have the legit claim because they kept control for a long time? Is there some formula for determining the point where you have occupied a territory long enough that it is now yours?
(as I said, the sole (and morally right) reason that the Falklands should be part of the UK at the moment is that the people there want it. but that is also some shit given that they kicked out the previous people living there.) I am not saying Argentine is right, I'm saying I'm sympathetic to their claim given the opposing claims also made by the UK.
Ah. Just looked at the date. I thought was something from the G-20.
Yes you silly goose, that is in fact one of the ways we decide who owns which parts of the world. We look at who the fuck lives there right now, how long they have lived there and how many there are. IT IS ENCODED INTO INTERNATIONAL LAW! THERE IS PRECEDENT AND EVERYTHING.
We don't look at random claims from 150 years ago, that where never enforced and where left dormant except for periods when the claimant nation needs to look good domestically. We certainly don't accept claims made at gunpoint, without even requesting the International Court or the UN for a judgment.
Like get off your high goddamn horse. Just cause you don't like the British, doesn't mean they where wrong. Like look up the Svaldbard Treaty, or the Norwegian/Danish dispute over the Ownership of Greenland. They are surprisingly relevant.
Wait, so does this mean we can have Virginia back, before returning it to the native tribes? Clearly there is a legitimacy to claims based on how long people have been there, and who is there now.
As for the Falklands, the previous people there weren't kicked out anywhere.
According to wikipedia, 27 people, only 12 of whom were Argentinian.
Wait, so you are suggesting the British could invade the US east coast and this would be fine? At some point you should stop and really think about what you are saying here.
Your entire claim here is patently ridiculous. It was UK territory inhabited by descendants of settlers from the UK who wanted to stay within the UK.
Did you not read the last part of my post?
i mean, you're totally wrong which should be somewhat obvious given that the Falkland Islands status is still disputed. They aren't officially recognized as part of the UK by most nations, including the US. The most common position is that it should still be negotiated. The correct way to settle territorial disputes is in fact NOT encoded into international law. There is in fact no clear precedent. And even if we would apply the Montevideo Convention to a territorial dispute, the length of time living there and the amount of people living there are not relevant. The only actually established relevant international law bit is, as I mentioned, the right to self determination. The fact that the people there want to be part of the UK is why they should be.
re the bolded: That is in fact part of the UK claim. They literally abandoned the whole thing for 61 years but argue that they left a plaque saying they owned it.
the Montevideo convention is an American Convention(as in a continental one). The UK isn't a signatory. Its not even relevant because it only deals with the colonial borders prior to independence.
The Falklands islands isn't considered a part of the UK, true. But it is considered an Overseas Territory. Something that is recognized by most nations, including the US. Guam for instance is not a part of the US, but an Overseas Territory. Want to claim it?
I mean i wouldn't not support their claim to independence.
but also, no, the Falklands islands aren't actually recognized. Sovereignity over Overseas Territories gets disputed, Spain still claims Gibraltar should be theirs, but on the islands specifically the US remains neutral. And the UN has put them, and Gibraltar for that matter, on the list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Jurisdiction is recognized of course, these places are not lawless. But like Taiwan and other places they are not actually recognized as such.
like, I brought up the Montevideo convention because it seemed the only thing close to your claims about international law. I know international law. It can be characterized by it covering very little. It certainly doesn't settle territorial disputes in the simplistic matter you suggest, that would be far too sensible and altruistic.
Guam, American Samoa and the Virgin Islands are also on the list for the record. It's a list of remaining colonies pretty much.
no.
But they used to own it. This is literally the only criteria you've established for the legitimacy of the Argentinian invasion. So why the sudden waffling?
Like, I feel like I could go back 13 pages and just quote things I and others wrote then rather then put in the effort to type out responses and still come out on top.
I never said the Argentinian invasion was fine. It was obviously wrong, even if war over territory was not itself illegitimate anyway. War is generally not justified.
My point is that you and others, and the UK, are defending the UK for illegitimate reasons. Because Argentine has equally valid illegitimate reasons for their claim. I am saying that it doesn't matter who was there first. It doesn't matter that you settled more people there. Leaving a plaque doesn't matter. Saying you are now the owner of all of Spain's previous territories in the region doesn't matter. Winning the conflict doesn't matter.
The reason the British invading the US east coast is wrong, is that the people living there do not want that. Sure they killed everyone who would want that way back, but that doesn't change what should happen now. We can't travel back in time, and should try getting over old grudges. Those don't matter. The (UN recognized) right to self-determination matters.
Further the islands are 1521 KM away from Argentina; this is well and truly outside of what is accepted as territorial waters (hilariously though, the islands are about the same distance from Chile, so logically they should have about as much claim to the islands).
No they aren't. Despite your refusal to acknowledge the basic facts of the matter, it remains true that the islands were UK territory inhabited by subjects of the UK government who very much wanted to remain part of the UK's territories. This is the opposite of illegitimate.
Argentina had no foot to stand on invading and the UK was not just within their rights to kick them out but essentially obligated by their responsibility to the UK subjects living there.
Geth, close the thread