Falklands War part 2?

[Infohawk]

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

Why do you keep saying it's one of multiple arguments? Because you know it's a bullshit argument. And it's not an argument. You don't really believe in it. Or else you would discuss why it only applies to Britain and not to the US.

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 not even commented upon?

What do you need to know? It's an island that's closest to the UK. Under your dumb logic it goes to the UK.

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

Again, that's what you say when you know you're argument is full of shit.

You just have two (maybe three?) crappy arguments that you don't apply to anywhere else in the world. When someone points out why your arguments are BS, you just whine that you have multiple arguments. Everyone has seen all your arguments and debunked them.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Why do you keep saying it's one of multiple arguments? Because you know it's a bullshit argument. And it's not an argument. You don't really believe in it. Or else you would discuss why it only applies to Britain and not to the US.

Because Argentina has a plurality of claims to the Malvinas, as I have already stated multiple times throughout this thread.

What do you need to know? It's an island that's closest to the UK. Under your dumb logic it goes to the UK.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. I have not stated that geographical proximity is the sole determination. This is something that you are making up again. Please stop being intellectually dishonest.

If the UK is the closest in geographical proximity to the Faroe Islands, then obviously that prong would benefit the UK.

I do not understand why you seem to have difficulty grasping the idea of multiple claims or prongs and a balancing between these prongs. This is quite common, especially in legal proceedings.

Again, that's what you say when you know you're argument is full of shit.

You just have two (maybe three?) crappy arguments that you don't apply to anywhere else in the world. When someone points out why your arguments are BS, you just whine that you have multiple arguments. Everyone has seen all your arguments and debunked them.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe that anyone has debunked my arguments. These are all separate claims which are based on facts. The totality of these claims, as I've stated many times very consistently here, favor Argentina IMO. The UK's sole claim appears to be that they were the first Europeans (but not the first humans) to land and their forced occupation that Argentina has been protesting since the time of the original UK invasion.

I see no reason why we should be rewarding the UK based on its hostile nature. Instead, Argentina has geographical, continental shelf, 'native argument' with first discovery, first landing, first European discovery, first settlement, etc. arguments and/or claims.

 

[Infohawk]

Because Argentina has a plurality of claims to the Malvinas, as I have already stated multiple times throughout this thread.



I'm not sure what you're talking about here. I have not stated that geographical proximity is the sole determination. This is something that you are making up again. Please stop being intellectually dishonest.

If the UK is the closest in geographical proximity to the Faroe Islands, then obviously that prong would benefit the UK.

I do not understand why you seem to have difficulty grasping the idea of multiple claims or prongs and a balancing between these prongs. This is quite common, especially in legal proceedings.



I'm sorry, but I don't believe that anyone has debunked my arguments. These are all separate claims which are based on facts. The totality of these claims, as I've stated many times very consistently here, favor Argentina IMO. The UK's sole claim appears to be that they were the first Europeans (but not the first humans) to land and their forced occupation that Argentina has been protesting since the time of the original UK invasion.

I see no reason why we should be rewarding the UK based on its hostile nature. Instead, Argentina has geographical, continental shelf, 'native argument' with first discovery, first landing, first European discovery, first settlement, etc. arguments and/or claims.

First of all, if you really believed in a balancing test, you would recognize that possession and the will of the people are more important than your prongs.

Again, you have no legitimate prongs. You cannot have a position that only applies to one specific case. Most sane people recognize that if you follow a principle, it should apply to everyone and everywhere. Your arguments only apply to the UK. You have a double-standard.

And by the way, stop saying that I'm saying geography is your sole argument. I've clearly listed and rebutted your several stupid arguments. I have explicitly recognized that you have multiple arguments (that all happen to be bogus) so I'm not sure why you keep saying this except to distract from the real issue which is that all your arguments are weak and not principled.

 

[RabidMongoose]

First of all, if you really believed in a balancing test, you would recognize that possession and the will of the people are more important than your prongs.

No, because the will of the people in this case stems from the original illegitimate UK invasion. It is a rigged vote. It would be similar to allowing Argentina to occupy a UK island, put their people on it, wait 100-200 years, and then asking about the will of the people.

Now can it be a prong, claim, and/or argument? Sure. But in this case it is weak since it stems from an illegitimate UK invasion that has been protested by Argentina.

Again, you have no legitimate prongs. You cannot have a position that only applies to one specific case. Most sane people recognize that if you follow a principle, it should apply to everyone and everywhere. Your arguments only apply to the UK. You have a double-standard.

I disagree in that I believe that my prongs are legitimate, especially since some of them have been used by pro-UK interests when they did not realize that natives counted.

Moreover, I don't see anywhere why my prongs only apply to one specific case. I have not stated anything that would come to such a conclusion. I think that instead you are reading your own biases into my argument.k

And by the way, stop saying that I'm saying geography is your sole argument. I've clearly listed and rebutted your several stupid arguments. I have explicitly recognized that you have multiple arguments (that all happen to be bogus) so I'm not sure why you keep saying this except to distract from the real issue which is that all your arguments are weak and not principled.

It's because you seem to take each individual argument or prong, applying it to a situation, and then saying that it requires a specific decision. However, that is illogical if i have multiple claims/arguments/prongs.

However, if you are stating that you do not believe that I'm saying that geography is a sole determinative argument, then I will not say that you believe that. However, I would appreciate it if you accord the same level of intellectual honesty to me.

 

[Infohawk]

I disagree in that I believe that my prongs are legitimate, especially since some of them have been used by pro-UK interests when they did not realize that natives counted.

Which ones are those?

Moreover, I don't see anywhere why my prongs only apply to one specific case. I have not stated anything that would come to such a conclusion.

Then explain why the US doesn't have to cede its land to indigenous peoples. Why is the UK the only one that has that be a factor? All your prongs fail in similar ways. They only apply AGAINST the UK.

It's because you seem to take each individual argument or prong, applying it to a situation, and then saying that it requires a specific decision.

Huh? That has nothing to do with your position that I'm saying you only have one argument. Your own statement here suggests that I recognize "each" argument." Stop lying.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Which ones are those?

I believe that all of my arguments are valid, but various people have brought up the 'UK first landing' and the issue of the first UK settlement.

Then explain why the US doesn't have to cede its land to indigenous peoples. Why is the UK the only one that has that be a factor? All your prongs fail in similar ways. They only apply AGAINST the UK.

I am sorry, but I do not understand how your question is relevant at all to the Malvinas. I am not sure why you keep talking about the US ceding land to native Americans when here we have a case of no natives living on the land and an issue of sovereignty between two nations.

The US-native issue that you have is concerning the US government and native Americans. That does not involve a separate country. However, I am in support of additional compensation, land, etc. going to native American populations in the US.

The Malvinas issue is with two independent nations - Argentina and the UK. The only way that natives come into issue here is that natives were the first to make landfall on the Malvinas, thus removing any UK claim of being the first to land in the Malvinas. Since the natives are most likely from Argentina, then any rights to first landing are according to Argentina. This combined with rights to first discovery and right to first settlement, which are all inherited by Argentina, obviously place the Malvinas in a much stronger historical connection with Argentina than the UK.

Huh? That has nothing to do with your position that I'm saying you only have one argument. Your own statement here suggests that I recognize "each" argument." Stop lying.

Infohawk, please stop lying. I have already caught you once.

You said:

what do you need to know? It's an island that's closest to the UK. Under your dumb logic it goes to the UK.

Thus, you are implying that a sole determination is geographical proximity. Again, please stop being intellectually dishonest here. I am giving you intellectual honesty here, but you are making it quite difficult. I never said that you are saying that I only have one argument, but that you are saying that isolating one of my prongs gives a specific decision. That is intellectually dishonest.

 

[Infohawk]

I believe that all of my arguments are valid.

I didn't ask which ones are valid. I asked which ones were used by pro-UK interests.

I am sorry, but I do not understand how your question is relevant at all to the Malvinas. I am not sure why you keep talking about the US ceding land to native Americans when here we have a case of no natives living on the land and an issue of sovereignty between two nations.

The US-native issue that you have is concerning the US government and native Americans. That does not involve a separate country. However, I am in support of additional compensation, land, etc. going to native American populations in the US.

The Malvinas issue is with two independent nations - Argentina and the UK. The only way that natives come into issue here is that natives were the first to make landfall on the Malvinas, thus removing any UK claim of being the first to land in the Malvinas. Since the natives are most likely from Argentina, then any rights to first landing are according to Argentina. This combined with rights to first discovery and right to first settlement, which are all inherited by Argentina, obviously place the Malvinas in a much stronger historical connection with Argentina than the UK.

So if that's what your argument is, than you're misunderstanding that people are talking about discovery by Europeans. Now we may not agree that that constitutes discovery today, but if you're entertaining all these colonial arguments, that is one of them. All the Europeans claimed plenty of territory this way. You either entertain the colonial arguments or you don't. You don't get to pick and choose ones that are only favorable to Argentina.

Infohawk, please stop lying. I have already caught you once.

You said:


Thus, you are implying that a sole determination is geographical proximity. Again, please stop being intellectually dishonest here. I am giving you intellectual honesty here, but you are making it quite difficult.

It implies that under that prong it goes to the UK. If you put my post in the context of discussing your prong, you'd understand that. It's pretty ridiculous to claim I'm saying it's your only prong when I've EXPLICITLY listed and rebutted the other ones.

 

[RabidMongoose]

So if that's what your argument is, than you're misunderstanding that people are talking about discovery by Europeans. Now we may not agree that that constitutes discovery today, but if you're entertaining all these colonial arguments, that is one of them. All the Europeans claimed plenty of territory this way. You either entertain the colonial arguments or you don't. You don't get to pick and choose ones that are only favorable to Argentina.

Sorry, but I don't accept race-based arguments like you seem to think is appropriate. That is not an appropriate method of claiming sovereignty.

As such, any non-racist discovery obviously favors Argentina. Moreover, if we adopt the racist based discovery that you seem to think are OK, then Argentina would still win out since it has the rights of first discovery and the rights of first settlement inherited.

It implies that under that prong it goes to the UK. If you put my post in the context of discussing your prong, you'd understand that. It's pretty ridiculous to claim I'm saying it's your only prong when I've EXPLICITLY listed and rebutted the other ones.

I'm not sure what is ridiculous when you have been fairly intellectually dishonest here. However, as I've already said, that the UK would win that particular prong.

 

[Infohawk]

Sorry, but I don't accept race-based arguments like you seem to think is appropriate. That is not an appropriate method of claiming sovereignty. As such, any non-racist discovery obviously favors Argentina. Moreover, if we adopt the racist based discovery that you seem to think are OK, then Argentina would still win out since it has the rights of first discovery and the rights of first settlement inherited.

There you go again. I never said I thought those were legitimate claims. That's why i said "we may not agree that that constitutes discovery today." Why did you ignore that part and say that I believe in racist arguments?
The Spanish and French claims are just as racist as the British ones. Obviously you can't claim territory inhabited by other people. But that's what the Europeans did when they claimed Argentina. This is why you're being inconsistent. If it's a colonial claim by the UK it's racist. If it's a colonial claim by France or Spain, it's not? That doesn't make any sense. They were all colonial claims made in a racist context, not just the UK ones.

I'm not sure what is ridiculous when you have been fairly intellectually dishonest here. However, as I've already said, that the UK would win that particular prong.

There's been no intellectual dishonesty here except by you. It's patently absurd to say someone is saying you only have one argument when they explicitly list your arguments.

 

[CanOWorms]

RabidMongoose seems to be arguing in the alternative. He is suggesting a multi-prong test to determine ownership. However, he is claiming that even if you do not support his test, the other analyses people are providing show ownership for Argentina rather than the UK.

Alternative #1 is that the UK owns the Malvinas because of the various "first to" historical connections, but he has shown that others have stronger claims than the UK (for example, the UK was second to step on the islands, etc.).

Alternative #2 is a race-based approach wherein only European claims are viewed as legitimate. Again, he argues that even under this approach Argentina has the stronger claims.

There is nothing inconsistent with what he is posting.

 

[RabidMongoose]

There you go again. I never said I thought those were legitimate claims. That's why i said "we may not agree that that constitutes discovery today." Why did you ignore that part and say that I believe in racist arguments?
The Spanish and French claims are just as racist as the British ones. Obviously you can't claim territory inhabited by other people. But that's what the Europeans did when they claimed Argentina. This is why you're being inconsistent. If it's a colonial claim by the UK it's racist. If it's a colonial claim by France or Spain, it's not? That doesn't make any sense. They were all colonial claims made in a racist context, not just the UK ones.

I agree, they are all racist claims if it means that natives are not humans. However, there were no natives living in the Malvinas. As such, non-racist claims would be the following:
1. Natives were the first to discovery the Malvinas.
2. Natives were the first to land on the Malvinas.
3. The French were the first to settle on the Malvinas, and their interest was acquired by the Spanish.

All three of the above are inherited by Argentina. There is NO UK historical claim, no claim that the UK inherits or acquired. Nothing. Thus, the non-racist argument clearly accords Argentina with historical connections to the Malvinas, not the UK.

What is the UK argument? It's solely based on their aggression that took the Malvinas by illegitimate force. The UK position is that it violently took over territory that they had no legitimate claim to, occupied it for some time at the protest of the rightful owner, and now say that as a result of their occupation, they want a popular referendum.

 

[RabidMongoose]

RabidMongoose seems to be arguing in the alternative. He is suggesting a multi-prong test to determine ownership. However, he is claiming that even if you do not support his test, the other analyses people are providing show ownership for Argentina rather than the UK.

Alternative #1 is that the UK owns the Malvinas because of the various "first to" historical connections, but he has shown that others have stronger claims than the UK (for example, the UK was second to step on the islands, etc.).

Alternative #2 is a race-based approach wherein only European claims are viewed as legitimate. Again, he argues that even under this approach Argentina has the stronger claims.

There is nothing inconsistent with what he is posting.

Yes, exactly. No matter which way you go, Argentina clearly has a much superior historical connection to the Malvinas than the British. It's not even close.

 

[Infohawk]

I agree, they are all racist claims. However, there were no natives living in the Malvinas. As such, non-racist claims would be the following:
1. Natives were the first to discovery the Malvinas.
2. Natives were the first to land on the Malvinas.

Neither of these favors Argentina. Argentina is a colonist country.

3. The French were the first to settle on the Malvinas, and their interest was acquired by the Spanish.

So are you saying the French settlement superseded the native settlement/discovery? Because then there's no reason the British settlement didn't supersede the other settlements/discoveries then.

All three of the above are inherited by Argentina.

No. Argentina does not inherit native claims. That's like saying the US inherits native claims. It doesn't. Both Argentina and the US exist and were founded at the expense of the natives.

There is NO UK historical claim, no claim that the UK inherits or acquired. Nothing. Thus, the non-racist argument clearly accords Argentina with historical connections to the Malvinas, not the UK. What is the UK argument? It's solely based on their aggression that took the Malvinas by illegitimate force.

A) A history of possession. Just like the founding of the US on the corpses of indigenous people's wasn't legitimate, it doesn't change the fact that European descendants have been here for centuries and are here to stay. Canadians don't get to say they have a greater claim to the US.
B) Inhabitants. Regardless of the past the only people living there now consider themselves British.




You didn't explain why you accused me of supporting racist claims when my post made it very clear that I didn't. Did you just not read it carefully? Or do you just like accusing people who don't agree with you of being racist?

 

[RabidMongoose]

Neither of these favors Argentina. Argentina is a colonist country.

They all favor Argentina since they inherited all of those rights. Native populations live in Argentina today. They are Argentinian.

So are you saying the French settlement superseded the native settlement/discovery? Because then there's no reason the British settlement didn't supersede the other settlements/discoveries then.

No, I'm saying that the French settlement supersede the UK settlement. Moreover, there were no native settlements on the Malvinas. Thus, if any rights are based on first settlement, it goes France -> Spain -> Argentina. The UK doesn't get a right from being second.

No. Argentina does not inherit native claims. That's like saying the US inherits native claims. It doesn't. Both Argentina and the US exist and were founded at the expense of the natives.

Of course Argentina inherits native claims because many natives and their descendants are Argentinian.

A) A history of possession. Just like the founding of the US on the corpses of indigenous people's wasn't legitimate, it doesn't change the fact that European descendants have been here for centuries and are here to stay. Canadians don't get to say they have a greater claim to the US.

It's a history of violent possession that has been actively protested by Argentina since the first violent takeover. That is not legitimate.

B) Inhabitants. Regardless of the past the only people living there now consider themselves British.

Also as a result of an illegitimate violent occupation.

Your entire argument is based on the British violent and illegitimate takeover of the Malvinas. In effect, you are saying that you would be fine if Argentina itself later occupies a random UK island, colonizes it, waits 100-200 years, and then holds a referendum. In such a case, would you abide by the referendum?

You didn't explain why you accused me of supporting racist claims when my post made it very clear that I didn't. Did you just not read it carefully? Or do you just like accusing people who don't agree with you of being racist?

You do have a very suspect history and your statements were not very clear.

 

[Infohawk]

They all favor Argentina since they inherited all of those rights. Native populations live in Argentina today. They are Argentinian.

So if the UK invaded Argentina and made the natives Argentinian they would inherit the natives' rights? That's silly. Why would you want to reward colonists for oppressing natives? If anything, the UK didn't displace any natives here and is more deserving.

No, I'm saying that the French settlement supersede the UK settlement. Moreover, there were no native settlements on the Malvinas. Thus, if any rights are based on first settlement, it goes France -> Spain -> Argentina. The UK doesn't get a right from being second.

Are you so sure there were no native settlements there at some point? They've found arrowheads there. You're fine with just putting up some buildings and saying it's yours? And under your proximity argument, the island was part of the native lands at that time and the French conquered it.

Your entire argument is based on the British violent and illegitimate takeover of the Malvinas. In effect, you are saying that you would be fine if Argentina itself later occupies a random UK island, colonizes it, waits 100-200 years, and then holds a referendum. In such a case, would you abide by the referendum?

Times have changed. This is extremely obvious. None of this colonial stuff would go on today. I think I made this extremely obvious the way I talked about the founding of the US and the fact that it doesn't change the fact that you can't remove Americans at this point.

You do have a very suspect history and your statements were not very clear.

How much more clear do I have to get then to tell you I don't consider colonial claims valid? You just ignore certain sentences so you can make it seem like people are racist. It wasn't a sentence in another post or another paragraph. It was the following sentence.

Also, I don't have any suspect history regarding race. You've been challenged to find even a post where I state my race or any racist comments and you've failed. I've also explicitly told you that I don't think race is important. Fortunately, now that there are new rules regarding misrepresentation, I expect you not to lie further.

 

[RabidMongoose]

So if the UK invaded Argentina and made the natives Argentinian they would inherit the natives' rights? That's silly. Why would you want to reward colonists for oppressing natives? If anything, the UK didn't displace any natives here and is more deserving.

If the natives became British, then obviously they through the UK would inherit the rights.

Are you so sure there were no native settlements there at some point? They've found arrowheads there. You're fine with just putting up some buildings and saying it's yours? And under your proximity argument, the island was part of the native lands at that time and the French conquered it.

There were no native settlements at the time of the European arrival. "Putting up some buildings" is just one prong.

Times have changed. This is extremely obvious. None of this colonial stuff would go on today. I think I made this extremely obvious the way I talked about the founding of the US and the fact that it doesn't change the fact that you can't remove Americans at this point.

This may make sense if Argentina had not had a continued protest. However, they do and as such it is still relevant. To just hand wave illegitimate British activity with 'times have changed' is not a strong argument.

This is a sign that you have no argument, when you just hand wave everything away as if it never happened.

Moreover, the issue with Argentina invading a UK island and establishing a colony is still relevant. It could just be hand waved away after 100-200 years.

How much more clear do I have to get then to tell you I don't consider colonial claims valid? You just ignore certain sentences so you can make it seem like people are racist. It wasn't a sentence in another post or another paragraph. It was the following sentence.

The entire UK claim is from colonialism.

Also, I don't have any suspect history regarding race. You've been challenged to find even a post where I state my race or any racist comments and you've failed. I've also explicitly told you that I don't think race is important. Fortunately, now that there are new rules regarding misrepresentation, I expect you not to lie further.

I am not making any such statements about you and racism with this post. I am fine with not understanding your previous statements and acknowledge it.

Moreover, you keep saying that I hate everything British. Please find a post of mine that says I hate everything to do with the UK. With regards to the rule of misrepresentation, I expect you not to lie further.

 

[pcgeek11]

I cannot believe this stupid argument is still going on. Argentina has no rights and they cannot do anything about it. Simple case closed.

 

[Infohawk]

If the natives became British, then obviously they through the UK would inherit the rights.

Then you should realize how absurd your argument is. You shouldn't be able to conquer natives rights. Those rights only belong to the natives, not to colonists of British or other descent.

"Putting up some buildings" is just one prong.

The British put up buildings too.

This may make sense if Argentina had not had a continued protest. However, they do and as such it is still relevant. To just hand wave illegitimate British activity with 'times have changed' is not a strong argument. This is a sign that you have no argument, when you just hand wave everything away as if it never happened.

Again, what's your argument for why the US is any different? The indigenous people here have complained continuously. The only reason the US has a valid claim is the same hand-waiving. It's just a practical issue that people have been here for so long.

The entire UK claim is from colonialism.

So is the Argentina's claim. The name of the country is even completely colonial.

I am not making any such statements about you and racism with this post. I am fine with not understanding your previous statements and acknowledge it.

Give me a break. You suggested it when you said I have a suspect past and a couple posts ago when you suggested I support racist claims. If you acknowledge it we can move on.

Moreover, you keep saying that I hate everything British. Please find a post of mine that says I hate everything to do with the UK. With regards to the rule of misrepresentation, I expect you not to lie further.

If the mods asked me to back up my claim I could probably link to hundreds of posts by you calling British people peasants and the like. Those posts speak for themselves.

 

[CanOWorms]

I cannot believe this stupid argument is still going on. Argentina has no rights and they cannot do anything about it. Simple case closed.

Thanks for the convincing argument.

They can actually do quite a lot. They are already disrupting UK's relations with the rest of Latin America and the United States. They can also make the Malvinas too expensive to administer by cutting the civilian air link.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Then you should realize how absurd your argument is. You shouldn't be able to conquer natives rights. Those rights only belong to the natives, not to colonists of British or other descent.

I'm fine with that, then the Malvinas should return to a counsel of natives from South America and they can deal with it as they wish.

However, the natives of Argentina are part of the government. It is a democracy. Their rights can be pursued by their own government.

The British put up buildings too.

Yes, after the French.

Again, what's your argument for why the US is any different? The indigenous people here have complained continuously. The only reason the US has a valid claim is the same hand-waiving. It's just a practical issue that people have been here for so long.

The US is not an issue between two nations. It's an issue with demographics within the US. This is quite different.

Moreover, the issue with Argentina invading a UK island and establishing a colony is still relevant. It could just be hand waved away after 100-200 years.

So is the Argentina's claim. The name of the country is even completely colonial.

Sure, if we remove all colonial-like claims, then the UK is left with nothing and Argentina is left with native first discovery, geographical proximity, and continental shelf contiguity.

If the mods asked me to back up my claim I could probably link to hundreds of posts by you calling British people peasants and the like. Those posts speak for themselves.

That says nothing about me hating anything to do with the UK. I hate their caste-system, yes, but that says nothing about hating everything to do with the UK. You are hereby on notice of intentional misrepresentation.

 

[pcgeek11]

Thanks for the convincing argument.

They can actually do quite a lot. They are already disrupting UK's relations with the rest of Latin America and the United States. They can also make the Malvinas too expensive to administer by cutting the civilian air link.

That would last about 5 minutes... then they will shoot down Argentina's biplane.

You and the rabid are two funny ass dudes. LOL

 

[Infohawk]

I'm fine with that, then the Malvinas should return to a counsel of natives from South America and they can deal with it as they wish.

I'm not sure there's much evidence of which natives went there. Their interests would be superseded by the fact that they had departed and the fact that British people are currently living there.

However, the natives of Argentina are part of the government. It is a democracy. Their rights can be pursued by their own government.

Clearly, their sovereignty and discovery rights are not part of that. Argentina crapped on those rights and doesn't get to benefit of them.

The US is not an issue between two nations. It's an issue with demographics within the US. This is quite different.

Moreover, the issue with Argentina invading a UK island and establishing a colony is still relevant. It could just be hand waved away after 100-200 years.

Your reasoning is circular. The only reason it's not an issue between two nations is the US completely took over America. Are you saying that if the UK invaded all of Argentina there would be no territorial dispute? The point is that it's all hand-waving. In the case of the US, you hand-wave away colonial crimes. In the case of the UK, you cry about an island that only has British residents.

Sure, if we remove all colonial-like claims, then the UK is left with nothing and Argentina is left with native first discovery, geographical proximity, and continental shelf contiguity.

Wow you're making geographical proximity and continental shelf contiguity two separate categories? No if you take away native first discovery you only have geographical proximity, which doesn't explain most of the borders in this world.

 

[CanOWorms]

That would last about 5 minutes... then they will shoot down Argentina's biplane.

You and the rabid are two funny ass dudes. LOL

What are you talking about? The primary civilian air link to the Malvinas is from a Chilean airline, departing from Chile traveling over Argentina. It also stops in Argentina on the way.

Many suspect that Argentina will cut that air link off. Currently, they have not done so. There are no Argentinian planes involved. Even if an Argentinian airplane was involved, why would it be shot down when it's the only civilian air link for the residents? Maintaining the air link is vital for the continued UK occupation.

 

[pcgeek11]

What are you talking about? The primary civilian air link to the Malvinas is from a Chilean airline, departing from Chile traveling over Argentina. It also stops in Argentina on the way.

Many suspect that Argentina will cut that air link off. Currently, they have not done so. There are no Argentinian planes involved. Even if an Argentinian airplane was involved, why would it be shot down when it's the only civilian air link for the residents? Maintaining the air link is vital for the continued UK occupation.

That would be more stupidity on her part.
http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16164445

Frustration that the lucrative oil work is proceeding without Argentina may make President Fernadez more bullish.

But, if she reacts by grounding the all-important flight, she may get a backlash from her own people.

Many Argentine troops killed during the 1982 war are buried in the Falklands.

Their families take the Chile plane to visit their graves. Denying them that route may prove politically difficult.

The UK can supply the island by ship, they may lack some perishables, but life would continue.

 

[CanOWorms]

That would be more stupidity on her part.
http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16164445

Frustration that the lucrative oil work is proceeding without Argentina may make President Fernadez more bullish.

But, if she reacts by grounding the all-important flight, she may get a backlash from her own people.

Many Argentine troops killed during the 1982 war are buried in the Falklands.

Their families take the Chile plane to visit their graves. Denying them that route may prove politically difficult.

The UK can supply the island by ship, they may lack some perishables, but life would continue.

I think it is smart. So far, the Argentinian leaders seem to be very politically savvy. They are making the Malvinas too expensive and risky for the UK to occupy.