Falklands War part 2?

Page 37 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
M

MotF Bane

No Lifer
Dec 22, 2006
60,801
10
0
RabidMongoose said:
There is already evidence of the Malvinas of native artifacts. Stop being racist. This has already been mentioned by other people besides myself here.

And you are being racist with your point here because you are essentially discounting anything that natives did. Why does only 'written history' aka european history matter?



It's just two prongs. It's much more than what the UK has.



The problem is that your entire argument rewards illegitimate activity. Would you be fine with Argentina sticking people on a UK island somewhere and then taking a vote of the people that they illegitimately placed on the island? Would you accept that vote?
Click to expand...

Proof of evidence of native discovery? I'm not seeing it on the Wikipedia article for the Falklands. As for why I place such value on written history, that is because you need evidenciary value to create any sort of legal claim. That means written history, or, if you are being truthful and can verify your statement, native artifacts.

Of course, you could find native artifacts all over the place from extinct civilizations, and, for that matter, nobody is calling for America to give back all of its land to Native Americans.

I already told you what to do with the race card. You scream and cry about racism, yet seem to have no idea what it is. Knock it off.

The UK has citizens on the island, a history of possession, and that's enough to hold the island against Argentina's imperial ambitions. So now we may have finally nailed you down to a real claim - Argentina by proximity. Sorry, that one doesn't overwhelm the UK's claims.

I would be fine with Argentina sticking people on an unoccupied and unclaimed island somewhere (if they can find one remaining on the globe at this point), and then saying it is theirs. But that is not what they want. What they want is an island that is already occupied and claimed, and they cannot have it.
 
M

MotF Bane

No Lifer
Dec 22, 2006
60,801
10
0
CanOWorms said:
You don't think further militarization of the South Atlantic with advanced weapons and nuclear missiles is menacing?



I don't think a full-scale war is going to break out.
Click to expand...

Well, of course a full-scale war isn't going to break out, unless Argentina does something stupid. Britain is putting forces down there to defend their islands and their citizens from Argentinian aggression. Nothing menacing about defensive actions, unless you have an invasion in mind.
 
I

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
CanOWorms said:
Please stop with your constant derailings. You were also warned on misrepresentation earlier.
Click to expand...

There is no misrepresentation. I posted the links earlier. Feel free to complain to the mods and I will be able to support my claim.
 
C

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
2
0
MotF Bane said:
I would be fine with Argentina sticking people on an unoccupied and unclaimed island somewhere (if they can find one remaining on the globe at this point), and then saying it is theirs. But that is not what they want. What they want is an island that is already occupied and claimed, and they cannot have it.
Click to expand...

The Malvinas only have 3000 people. May they place people on the unoccupied parts of the Malvinas? Argentina already satisfies the claim element.
 
C

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
2
0
Infohawk said:
There is no misrepresentation. I posted the links earlier. Feel free to complain to the mods and I will be able to support my claim.
Click to expand...

I'm mainly worried about the constant derailings. I can't post anywhere without you turning P&N into your own personal soap opera.
 
M

MotF Bane

No Lifer
Dec 22, 2006
60,801
10
0
CanOWorms said:
The Malvinas only have 3000 people. May they place people on the unoccupied parts of the Malvinas? Argentina already satisfies the claim element.
Click to expand...

I said unoccupied and unclaimed. The Falklands are already claimed, which is to say, fully legally possessed, by the United Kingdom. Argentina's claims do not constitute a legal possession to place their citizens on the island, even in unoccupied spaces.
 
R

RabidMongoose

Lifer
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
MotF Bane said:
Proof of evidence of native discovery? I'm not seeing it on the Wikipedia article for the Falklands. As for why I place such value on written history, that is because you need evidenciary value to create any sort of legal claim. That means written history, or, if you are being truthful and can verify your statement, native artifacts.
Click to expand...

yes, things like arrowheads and such have already been found on the Malvinas. Wikipedia isn't exactly a serious source.

Your placing all value on written history is inherently racist in this regard. Sorry, but native artifacts on the Malvinas is just as much evidence as written history from Europeans, if not more.

Of course, you could find native artifacts all over the place from extinct civilizations, and, for that matter, nobody is calling for America to give back all of its land to Native Americans.

I already told you what to do with the race card. You scream and cry about racism, yet seem to have no idea what it is. Knock it off.
Click to expand...

If you discount natives based on rigged logic that only rewards Europeans, then that is highly suspicious.

The UK has citizens on the island, a history of possession, and that's enough to hold the island against Argentina's imperial ambitions. So now we may have finally nailed you down to a real claim - Argentina by proximity. Sorry, that one doesn't overwhelm the UK's claims.

I would be fine with Argentina sticking people on an unoccupied and unclaimed island somewhere (if they can find one remaining on the globe at this point), and then saying it is theirs. But that is not what they want. What they want is an island that is already occupied and claimed, and they cannot have it.
Click to expand...

The Malvinas were claimed and there was an Argentine outpost there when the British invaded.

So, would you be fine with Argentina invading a UK island that is currently owned by the UK today, putting their people on it, and then taking a vote 150 years later? Because that is what the UK has done.

If you're not fine with that, then you should be fine with the Malvinas being transferred to the Argentines. Moreover, this would probably be the easiest transfer of sovereignty in existence since the UK has no connection to the Malvinas and the UK will not be able to economically sustain the Malvinas soon, IMO.
 
R

RabidMongoose

Lifer
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
MotF Bane said:
I said unoccupied and unclaimed. The Falklands are already claimed, which is to say, fully legally possessed, by the United Kingdom. Argentina's claims do not constitute a legal possession to place their citizens on the island, even in unoccupied spaces.
Click to expand...

Argentina has legal claims on the islands. Moreover, some of the islands are uninhabited. Maybe Argentina can just stick people on those islands.

The UK doesn't fully legally possess the Malvinas.
 
R

RabidMongoose

Lifer
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
Infohawk said:
By when?
Click to expand...

So you are asking for a time when you refused to give explanation on your time deadline that magically rewards everything that the UK has done?

Personally, I feel like it'll be within the next 20-50 years. South America is booming, the UK is on decline. The Malvinas just won't be worth it soon.
 
C

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
2
0
RabidMongoose said:
So you are asking for a time when you refused to give explanation on your time deadline that magically rewards everything that the UK has done?

Personally, I feel like it'll be within the next 20-50 years. South America is booming, the UK is on decline. The Malvinas just won't be worth it soon.
Click to expand...

Yup. The UK is set to be the new third world.
 
I

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
CanOWorms said:
I'm mainly worried about the constant derailings. I can't post anywhere without you turning P&N into your own personal soap opera.
Click to expand...

If you're mainly worried about derailings you shouldn't keep suggesting that I'm misrepresenting you as I will be happy to just link to your idiotic posts. I don't think its derailing to show that someone is insanely biased against a certain country when that country is the topic.
 
C

CanOWorms

Lifer
Jul 3, 2001
12,404
2
0
Infohawk said:
If you're mainly worried about derailings you shouldn't keep suggesting that I'm misrepresenting you as I will be happy to just link to your idiotic posts. I don't think its derailing to show that someone is insanely biased against a certain country when that country is the topic.
Click to expand...

Of course it is. Talk of the topic, not the posters. I can find many idiotic posts from you that would suggest various bias from you (mainly white supremacist), but I'm not. Why? Because it has no direct bearing on the topic. This forum is about politics and news, not posters of politics and news.
 
R

RabidMongoose

Lifer
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
CanOWorms said:
I'm mainly worried about the constant derailings. I can't post anywhere without you turning P&N into your own personal soap opera.
Click to expand...

Yup. Infohawk just has his own personal vendettas and he'll do anything to constantly derail threads and turn them into a 'personal soap opera' (I like that term for him). Even this thread is evidence of his soap opera tendencies.

One time he even accused me of being off-topic in a thread for talking about an off topic subject when only one person brought up the off topic subject and nobody else commented on it except for Infohawk! It was a good example of his attempt to turn everything into his own personal soap opera. He has even tried with this thread, but I try not to let him ruin everything that he posts in.
 
WelshBloke

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
33,082
11,263
136
CanOWorms said:
Of course it is. Talk of the topic, not the posters. I can find many idiotic posts from you that would suggest various bias from you (mainly white supremacist), but I'm not. Why? Because it has no direct bearing on the topic. This forum is about politics and news, not posters of politics and news.
Click to expand...

Can you stick to the topic rather than attacking other posters please.
 
WelshBloke

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
33,082
11,263
136
RabidMongoose said:
Yup. Infohawk just has his own personal vendettas and he'll do anything to constantly derail threads and turn them into a 'personal soap opera' (I like that term for him). Even this thread is evidence of his soap opera tendencies.

One time he even accused me of being off-topic in a thread for talking about an off topic subject when only one person brought up the off topic subject and nobody else commented on it except for Infohawk! It was a good example of his attempt to turn everything into his own personal soap opera. He has even tried with this thread, but I try not to let him ruin everything that he posts in.
Click to expand...

Can you stick to the topic rather than attacking other posters please.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom