Falklands War part 2?

[RabidMongoose]

No you were talking about the US. Did you already forget what you said a couple posts ago?



What exactly do you mean by that if it means non-indigenous people don't have to leave? Are you now saying you don't think land should be given back?

I said nothing about the US giving all land back to the native Americans. However, I do feel that compensation has not been just.

Moreover, in the case of the Malvinas, personal property rights in land would not be impacted whatsoever. I am talking about transferring of sovereignty from the UK to Argentina. Personal property rights would remain.

The ridiculous hypothetical involving Pakistanis in the UK (who as far as I can tell have never asked for succession) isn't analogous to UK-Argentina story at all. If would only be analogous if Pakistanis had claimed some Island off the coast of Britain, possessed it for more than a hundred years, and then the British wanted it back now because it had oil.

Would you be fine with that analogous scenario?

 

[CanOWorms]

The ridiculous hypothetical involving Pakistanis in the UK (who as far as I can tell have never asked for succession) isn't analogous to UK-Argentina story at all. If would only be analogous if Pakistanis had claimed some Island off the coast of Britain, possessed it for more than a hundred years, and then the British wanted it back now because it had oil.

It's not meant to be analogous. It's to evaluate your stance on the position of the will of the residents.

Ultimately, as I've stated before in this thread, I don't think that is the primary factor. However, you've stated it to be more important.

Why are you being so evasive?

 

[Infohawk]

I said nothing about the US giving all land back to the native Americans.

Then how much? And would the indigenous people be able to kick non-indigenous people out or have the exclusive right to vote?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faroe_Islands

There's nothing in the news about the UK trying to take over the Faroe Islands.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Then how much? And would the indigenous people be able to kick non-indigenous people out or have the exclusive right to vote?

I am not sure of how much. Why do you ask? If you would like to explore that issue, then I would suggest that you create a new thread about it so that we can discuss. This thread is about the Malvinas. I am not advocating removal of any non-indigenous people from the Malvinas.

Please try to stay on topic. Thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faroe_Islands

There's nothing in the news about the UK trying to take over the Faroe Islands.

What does the Faroe Islands have to do with my position and/or the Malvinas? If nothing, then please try to stay on topic. I would really appreciate it.

 

[Infohawk]

This thread is about the Malvinas. Please try to stay on topic. Thanks.

I posted that as a direct response to your own question... Not sure why you would ask a question and then complain that the answer is off-topic. If that is off topic than your question was off topic. There is an island off of Britain that Britain doesn't have control of and Britain's not trying to control it. I don't have a problem with it either to answer your question.

I'm not surprised that you want to avoid talking about the larger issue though because it shows that you're inconsistent. When the British colonists have control over a territory you cry about the rights of the natives but for some reason in the US you are fine with colonists from all over the world having authority over local indigenous people.

 

[RabidMongoose]

I posted that as a direct response to your own question... Not sure why you would ask a question and then complain that the answer is off-topic. If that is off topic than your question was off topic.

Again, please try to stay on topic.

There is an island off of Britain that Britain doesn't have control of and Britain's not trying to control it. I don't have a problem with it either to answer your question.

What does this have to do with the Malvinas? If it has nothing, then please try to stay on topic. Thanks.

I'm not surprised that you want to avoid talking about the larger issue though because it shows that you're inconsistent. When the British colonists have control over a territory you cry about the rights of the natives but for some reason in the US you are fine with colonists from all over the world having authority over local indigenous people.

I don't believe that a popular referendum is solely determinative of the national sovereignty of a land. You seem to think that it does in the case of the Malvinas. What exactly is your position on the popular referendum of the Malvinas? And do you apply this same logic to other hypothetical scenarios as earlier described?

Moreover, there aren't natives on the Malvinas, so I have no idea what you're talking about. There are natives in Argentina. However, as I've repeatedly discussed, there are several claims for Argentinian sovereignty over the Malvinas.

Please try to stay on topic. I would really appreciate it. Thanks.

 

[Infohawk]

Again, please try to stay on topic.



What does this have to do with the Malvinas? If it has nothing, then please try to stay on topic. Thanks.

I think you've just surpassed any level of intellectual dishonesty I've seen on this board. You can't use off-topic as a shield against posts that point out your inconsistencies. You asked me a question and I responded to it and then you claimed I was being off-topic. That is ridiculous.

Hopefully everyone besides Cow can see that you hold the UK to a standard that you don't hold the US (or probably any other country to).

 

[RabidMongoose]

I think you've just surpassed any level of intellectual dishonesty I've seen on this board. You can't use off-topic as a shield against posts that point out your inconsistencies. You asked me a question and I responded to it and then you claimed I was being off-topic. That is ridiculous.

Hopefully everyone besides Cow can see that you hold the UK to a standard that you don't hold the US (or probably any other country to).

You are now lying in a desperate attempt to derail this thread.

Someone actually asked me about the native Americans and I responded to him with:

The US should be giving land back to native Americans and should at the very least compensate the native Americas.

YOU responded to me with a question in an attempt to take this discussion off topic:

They have some reservations. Do you want them to have it all?

And do you think that British people should be able to ask immigrants to Britain to leave as well?

Is the fundamental rule underpinning all your positions that whatever screws British/white people over is good or do you have any actual underpinnings that are fair?

You further stated in another post in response to CoW where you again brought up me and native Americans:

If non-indigenous US citizens need to leave North America, does he think that non-indigenous people everywhere should have to leave whatever country they've gone to?

To which I responded:

I never said anything about people needing to leave. What on earth are you talking about? Even in the case of the Malvinas, I think that the residents there can remain, but sovereignty can be transferred.

However, I do believe that CoW brings up a good point. Can you please address his comment about Pakistanis in the UK? If a section of the UK wants to secede and become part of Pakistan, would you be OK with that?

And then you just kept talking about native Americans.

Infohawk, please try to stay on topic. I see no reason why native Americans are relevant to the Malvinas. I didn't ask you anything about native Americans, so please stop lying and being off topic. Thanks.

 

[Infohawk]

And then you just kept talking about native Americans.

Infohawk, please try to stay on topic. I see no reason why native Americans are relevant to the Malvinas. I didn't ask you anything about native Americans, so please stop lying and being off topic. Thanks.

They are relevant to this thread because it shows your whole position is just based on UK-bashing (as it's always the case) and not on any objective principles that would apply equally to all countries.

In case you are genuinely confused (and not trolling as you probably are) imagine that in one thread about Christianity, a poster says that Christianity is good because all religion is good. In another thread about Islam, the poster says that Islam is bad. If someone points out the fact that they are inconsistent, it's absurd for the poster to say that it's off-topic and refuse to address it. You want to be able to have ridiculously inconsistent positions and think you can tell people to stop pointing out your inconsistencies. That's not going to happen. You're being intellectually dishonest. If you are at all intellectually honest, explain why the UK has to defer to the rights of indigenous people but the US doesn't.

 

[RabidMongoose]

They are relevant to this thread because it shows your whole position is just based on UK-bashing (as it's always the case) and not on any objective principles that would apply equally to all countries.

I don't have any position on 'UK-bashing.' This is like me saying that your entire position is on 'minority hating and racism.' Please try to be intellectually honest, especially after I already caught you attempting to be intellectually dishonest and lying.

Again, you are the only one who keeps asking about native Americans. I never asked you anything about them. I am still not sure how native Americans are relevant to the issue of the Malvinas. Please try to stay on topic.

In case you are genuinely confused (and not trolling as you probably are) imagine that in one thread about Christianity, a poster says that Christianity is good because all religion is good. In another thread about Islam, the poster says that Islam is bad. If someone points out the fact that they are inconsistent, it's absurd for the poster to say that it's off-topic and refuse to address it. You want to be able to have ridiculously inconsistent positions and think you can tell people to stop pointing out your inconsistencies. That's not going to happen. You're being intellectually dishonest. If you are at all intellectually honest, explain why the UK has to defer to the rights of indigenous people but the US doesn't.

Defer what rights to indigenous people? I have never said that is the sole determinative factor. Moreover, the Malvinas did not have an existing indigenous population. However, the indigenous population of Argentina/South America landed on the Malvinas first, thus effectively placing rights to Argentina over the British being the second to land there if any such claim or rights are accorded to mere landing on the island.

Anyways, please try to stay on topic. Native Americans have nothing to do with the Malvinas. I haven't asked you questions about Native Americans here, that is something that you made up in a moment of intellectual dishonesty or perhaps it was just a mistake.

Moreover, it appears that you are taking quite the personal beef with me here. Please focus on my arguments. If you have a personal problem with me, please don't go off-topic in this thread in public and instead just PM me. Thanks.

 

[Infohawk]

Defer what rights to indigenous people? I have never said that is the sole determinative factor. Moreover, the Malvinas did not have an existing indigenous population. However, the indigenous population of Argentina/South America landed on the Malvinas first, thus effectively placing rights to Argentina over the British being the second to land there if any such claim or rights are accorded to mere landing on the island.

So rights of the indigenous are not one of your factors? Because you sure keep harping on it. Do you want to abandon that line of argument? If you don't, you'd better explain why the UK and not the US has to cede all its land in the region to indigenous populations.

Other than that you have your silly geographical argument, which is patently ridiculous. Do you think the Faroe Islands should belong to the UK? It's closer to the UK after all.

Again, something is not off-topic if it shows your position is not consistent.

 

[RabidMongoose]

So rights of the indigenous are not one of your factors? Because you sure keep harping on it. Do you want to abandon that line of argument? If you don't, you'd better explain why the UK and not the US has to cede all its land in the region to indigenous populations.

I said it wasn't the sole factor. It is a factor. Please read more carefully.

Other than that you have your silly geographical argument, which is patently ridiculous. Do you think the Faroe Islands should belong to the UK? It's closer to the UK after all.

The geographical argument is but one factor. The historical factors quite obviously favor Argentina. For example, the only claim that the UK can apparently give is that it was the second to land on the Malvinas. However, the first were the native South American/Argentine population. Thus, any claim or rights that arise out of the UK landing on the Malvinas are naturally accorded to the natives of South America, which would thus go to Argentina or at least an international South American organization.

I take no position on the Faroe Islands at this time. Please try to stay on topic as I don't see how the Faroe Islands are related to the Malvinas.

 

[CanOWorms]

Let's try to get this thread back on topic and away from Infohawk's soap opera.

I've been reading many editorials on the crisis. I thought the following was interesting.

Falkland islanders will be sold out sooner or later

Nicholas Ridley, a stalwart rightwinger when he wasn't being a Foreign Office minister, went to the islanders 33 years ago and gave them a sensible option. Britain couldn't bear the cost of supporting and defending them any longer. Too much cash, too much redundant toil. They'd get on far better if Argentina was a helpful neighbour. Geography and commonsense dictated a peaceful solution: leaseback. That way the islanders lived their lives as before, but Buenos Aires took sovereignty in the long run. It was what Ridley and, by inference, even former prime minister Margaret Thatcher thought best.

It seems that many in the UK recognize the inability to maintain the Malvinas. Co-sovereignty arguments were even argued over 30 years ago!

I can't help but think that the UK attaches an irrational relationship with the Malvinas because it involved a war the UK won following decades of humiliating defeats against third world civilians. Perhaps Argentina needs to address this.

 

[WelshBloke]

Did you decide if the government of Argentina needs to be dissolved and power handed back to the indigenous population? We wouldn't want to reward colonialism.

 

[Infohawk]

I said it wasn't the sole factor. It is a factor. Please read more carefully.

If it's a factor, then explain why the US doesn't have to cede all its lands back to the native americans. You can't say "it's only one factor" to defeat criticisms of your position. Either retract your position or defend it. Do you notice that whenever someone kicks the legs out of one of "your factors" you claim it's not the only factor? The problem is all the legs are missing from your table. You either have to start defending your factors or concede that your entire position is wrong.

The geographical argument is but one factor. The historical factors quite obviously favor Argentina. For example, the only claim that the UK can apparently give is that it was the second to land on the Malvinas. However, the first were the native South American/Argentine population. Thus, any claim or rights that arise out of the UK landing on the Malvinas are naturally accorded to the natives of South America, which would thus go to Argentina or at least an international South American organization.

I take no position on the Faroe Islands at this time. Please try to stay on topic as I don't see how the Faroe Islands are related to the Malvinas.

It's astounding that you're going back to the native argument even though you just said it was only one factor before. Are you being serious right now? It's like playing a hidden ball game and one someone looks under both cups you claim that the ball is still under the other cup even though they just looked at it.

You don't see how the Faroe Islands are related? It's pretty much the analogous situation except in reverse for the UK in terms of your dumb proximity rule. It's an island that's close to them but they don't claim rights to. You don't want to address it or take a position on it because it would require you to take a pro-UK position to be consistent.

 

[Infohawk]

Did you decide if the government of Argentina needs to be dissolved and power handed back to the indigenous population? We wouldn't want to reward colonialism.

The indigenous issue is just ONE factor dude. You also have to look at the proximity issue. What? You want to point out a problem with that factor? (Like the fact that he doesn't think the Faroe Islands should go to the UK?) Then that's only one factor too and you need to go back to the indigenous issue.

 

[WelshBloke]

The indigenous issue is just ONE factor dude. You also have to look at the proximity issue. What? You want to point out a problem with that factor? (Like the fact that he doesn't think the Faroe Islands should go to the UK?) Then that's only one factor too and you need to go back to the indigenous issue.

Hmmmm, you have a point. Maybe we should abolish all the South American nations and reinstate the pre colonial boarders.

 

[CanOWorms]

The indigenous issue is just ONE factor dude. You also have to look at the proximity issue. What? You want to point out a problem with that factor? (Like the fact that he doesn't think the Faroe Islands should go to the UK?) Then that's only one factor too and you need to go back to the indigenous issue.

I'm still waiting for you to answer my question. Why are you ignoring it?

 

[RabidMongoose]

If it's a factor, then explain why the US doesn't have to cede all its lands back to the native americans. You can't say "it's only one factor" to defeat criticisms of your position. Either retract your position or defend it. Do you notice that whenever someone kicks the legs out of one of "your factors" you claim it's not the only factor? The problem is all the legs are missing from your table. You either have to start defending your factors or concede that your entire position is wrong.

I never said it was the only factor. It seems that you feel the need to make up positions for people so that you can have something to argue against. Please stop being intellectually dishonest.

And, again, the native Americans have nothing to do with the Malvinas. If you would like to discuss the native Americans, then I would be happy to do so in a thread about them.

Furthermore, I have never said that native groups of South America are automatically owed the Malvinas. That is again something that you are making up.

It's astounding that you're going back to the native argument even though you just said it was only one factor before. Are you being serious right now? It's like playing a hidden ball game and one someone looks under both cups you claim that the ball is still under the other cup even though they just looked at it.

That's because the native argument is primarily used to support one of the Argentinian claims out of several claims which I have already discussed and supported. Essentially, the UK's only historical connection is that it was the first European power to land on the Malvinas. However, that is negated by the natives being the first to land on the Malvinas. Thus, any rights that people here have been according to the UK based on a landing are obviously belonging to Argentina or an international SA organization.

You don't see how the Faroe Islands are related? It's pretty much the analogous situation except in reverse for the UK in terms of your dumb proximity rule. It's an island that's close to them but they don't claim rights to. You don't want to address it or take a position on it because it would require you to take a pro-UK position to be consistent.

I don't really know much about the Faroe Islands at all. I would have no problem taking a pro-UK position with regard to them if I felt it was just and right. However, this is very off topic. If you have an issue with me, then please PM me instead of derailing this thread about some islands that aren't anywhere near the Malvinas.

Please try to stay on topic. I would really appreciate it.

 

[RabidMongoose]

The indigenous issue is just ONE factor dude. You also have to look at the proximity issue. What? You want to point out a problem with that factor? (Like the fact that he doesn't think the Faroe Islands should go to the UK?) Then that's only one factor too and you need to go back to the indigenous issue.

Please stop being intellectually dishonest. I have not stated any position on the Faroe Islands. I barely even know anything about them, to be frank.

You are clearly trolling now. Please stop.

 

[Nebor]

Please stop being intellectually dishonest. I have not stated any position on the Faroe Islands. I barely even know anything about them, to be frank.

You are clearly trolling now. Please stop.

You barely know anything about the Falkland Islands (you keep calling them by a made up dago name) and yet, here we are 28 pages later.


Ethnic slurs are not allowed in P&N.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dago

Administrator Idontcare

 

[RabidMongoose]

You barely know anything about the Falkland Islands (you keep calling them by a made up dago name) and yet, here we are 28 pages later.

Please don't use ethnic slurs. If you are not aware, d--- is an ethnic slur.

 

[Infohawk]

I never said it was the only factor. It seems that you feel the need to make up positions for people so that you can have something to argue against. Please stop being intellectually dishonest.

And, again, the native Americans have nothing to do with the Malvinas. If you would like to discuss the native Americans, then I would be happy to do so in a thread about them.

Furthermore, I have never said that native groups of South America are automatically owed the Malvinas. That is again something that you are making up.



That's because the native argument is primarily used to support one of the Argentinian claims out of several claims which I have already discussed and supported. Essentially, the UK's only historical connection is that it was the first European power to land on the Malvinas. However, that is negated by the natives being the first to land on the Malvinas. Thus, any rights that people here have been according to the UK based on a landing are obviously belonging to Argentina or an international SA organization.



I don't really know much about the Faroe Islands at all. I would have no problem taking a pro-UK position with regard to them if I felt it was just and right. However, this is very off topic. If you have an issue with me, then please PM me instead of derailing this thread about some islands that aren't anywhere near the Malvinas.

Please try to stay on topic. I would really appreciate it.

Right now I am discussing the problems with your arguments. I am not going to PM you. (Since the mods can't look at those I have no reason to trust you at all in a PM.) Stop crying about me being off-topic. I'm fairly confident if a moderator looked over this thread they would see you trying to evade legitimate criticisms of your position instead of honestly discussing the issues.

I didn't say it was your only factor. I'm saying you have multiple factors, and they are all BS. Each time points out that one of your factors is bogus, you point to the other factors, but they have been undermined too.

Let's review your arguments in favor of Argentina:

1) You have the native argument. You don't really believe in that position consistently. In reality you don't think native rights are a determining factor in the US so it's clear this is just one of those BS factors to substitute for UK-bashing. (If it isn't, feel free to explain why the US doesn't need to give up sovereignty of all territories back to the US.)

2) You have the proximity argument. You don't really believe in that position consistently. You don't think the Faroes should go to the UK despite the fact that it's closer to the UK than Iceland. Not to mention there are dozens of other actual scenarios where proximity has no bearing on control.

3) You have the colonial argument. This is the weakest of all. You yourself hate colonialism and don't think colonial claims are valid anywhere else. Again, you only like the argument here because it works against Britain.

What are you left with? Nothing? The only thing that binds these arguments together is that it works against Britain in this specific case.

 

[WelshBloke]

Please stop being intellectually dishonest. I have not stated any position on the Faroe Islands. I barely even know anything about them, to be frank.

You are clearly trolling now. Please stop.

So you do think we should have the Faroe isles then?

Thanks and all but we'll go with what the islanders want.

Edit: hold on I thought you were Icelandic or something. How do you not know about the faroe isles?

 

[RabidMongoose]

1) You have the native argument. You don't really believe in that position consistently. In reality you don't think native rights are a determining factor in the US so it's clear this is just one of those BS factors to substitute for UK-bashing. (If it isn't, feel free to explain why the US doesn't need to give up sovereignty of all territories back to the US.)

The 'native argument' is one of my multiple arguments for Argentinian sovereignty over the Malvinas.

It is primarily used to show that the natives were actually the first to land on the Malvinas, taking away any historical relevance the UK has to the Malvinas. Their strongest claim is that they were the first Europeans to land on the Malvinas, but they were not the first humans to land on the Malvinas.

2) You have the proximity argument. You don't really believe in that position consistently. You don't think the Faroes should go to the UK despite the fact that it's closer to the UK than Iceland. Not to mention there are dozens of other actual scenarios where proximity has no bearing on control.

I have taken no position on the Faroes at this time. So how can you say that I am not being consistent based on some issue that I haven't even commented upon?

Moreover, again, the proximity is just one claim out of many Argentinian claims.

3) You have the colonial argument. This is the weakest of all. You yourself hate colonialism and don't think colonial claims are valid anywhere else. Again, you only like the argument here because it works against Britain.

Not sure what you're talking about here. I obviously do not like the colonialist claims, but if we go by them and compare the UK with Argentina, then obviously Argentina prevails since it inherits rights from first discovery and first settlement. Not to mention rights to first landing based on the 'native argument.'

What are you left with? Nothing? The only thing that binds these arguments together is that it works against Britain in this specific case.

Actually, I'm left with everything. The only argument that the UK really has is one of forced occupation, which is illegitimate.

Thank you for going back on topic. I really do appreciate it. I am really interested in this subject and am fine with your disagreement and overall comments. Thanks.