Falklands War part 2?

[Infohawk]

I already told you a few posts ago.

You just said I was leaving genocide out. And I asked how genocide changes your statement. And you're ignoring the fact that you brought up the attacks other places and didn't mention genocide. Clearly the genocide part is not that relevant.Please state clearly what your position on the attacks is or what is wrong about the statement that you think the UK should have been attacked because of its response to the oil spill. How about this? You think that the UK is a genocidal country and the oil spill raised the risks of a genocide and therefore you thought it made sense for the US to attack London. Is that what you meant? Or did you mean something else?

Not really. I don't believe that a "complete realignment" implies that you dump all other relations. It means that you're stressing those that you previously did not, and de-emphasizing those that you previously emphasized.

Do you agree that the US has distanced itself from its prior position with the UK in regards to the Malvinas?

Complete means "nothing missing" or "full." Maybe you were exaggerating? Why are you calling them the Malvinas. In the US we call them the Falkand Islands no?

 

[shiner]

The re-alignment issue is interesting. I am not sure if I would say that it's a 'complete re-alignment' but it appears to be in the process of at least some re-alignment that is more favorable to Argentina and against the UK. Personally, I find this to be positive and hope that it can lead to a more just resolution to the Malvinas within the next 10-20 years.

What is more just than letting the people that live there decide who they want to be governed by?

 

[RabidMongoose]

I'm in the US, but I choose to call them the Malvinas as well. I feel that the UK should surrender their claim to the Malvinas. I suppose it's the same how some people refer to Myanmar as Burma. Falkland Islands is an illegitimate name from an illegitimate occupier. Everyone should refer to these islands as the Malvinas.

 

[CanOWorms]

You just said I was leaving genocide out. And I asked how genocide changes your statement. And you're ignoring the fact that you brought up the attacks other places and didn't mention genocide. Clearly the genocide part is not that relevant.

I disagree. It's relevant and sheds light on other posts. Many posts on a similar topic, across threads and days, are often linked in a common theme, intent, purpose, mental state, and context.

Please state clearly what your position on the attacks is or what is wrong about the statement that you think the UK should have been attacked because of its response to the oil spill. How about this? You think that the UK is a genocidal country and the oil spill raised the risks of a genocide and therefore you thought it made sense for the US to attack London. Is that what you meant? Or did you mean something else?

Can you please provide me with a link that states that a warning requires further discussion on an old topic that was misrepresented? I'd like to see the procedures. Do you not think that cutting out large portions of a text clearly representing context is per se misrepresentation?

Complete means "nothing missing" or "full." Maybe you were exaggerating? Why are you calling them the Malvinas. In the US we call them the Falkand Islands no?

A dictionary game ultimately doesn't matter here. The point is that the US may not unconditionally support the UK in a military engagement like many here are posting.

In the US, we can call them either the Falklands or the Malvinas.

 

[RabidMongoose]

What is more just than letting the people that live there decide who they want to be governed by?

Because the UK expelled some of the Argentinian inhabitants and have colonized it for years. The Argentinians are not going to be oppressors. They have a more legitimate claim to the Malvinas than the British.

We could allow Argentina control it for 100 years, stick Argentinians there, and then have a referendum after 100 years of Argentinian control to decide who the people want to be governed by. Would that be ok?

 

[shiner]

Because the UK expelled some of the Argentinian inhabitants and have colonized it for years. The Argentinians are not going to be oppressors. They have a more legitimate claim to the Malvinas than the British.

We could allow Argentina control it for 100 years, stick Argentinians there, and then have a referendum after 100 years of Argentinian control to decide who the people want to be governed by. Would that be ok?

France or Spain have more of a legit claim to the islands than Argentina. By all accounts the islands were uninhabited when they were discovered/claimed by the European powers.

 

[CanOWorms]

France or Spain have more of a legit claim to the islands than Argentina. By all accounts the islands were uninhabited when they were discovered/claimed by the European powers.

Perhaps Argentina inherits it from Spain's claim.

Moreover, why does claiming/discovering an uninhabited island give control to a particular nation? One can merely reject that sort of activity as the basis of ownership and emphasize something else. For example, proximity to the closest nation.

 

[RabidMongoose]

France or Spain have more of a legit claim to the islands than Argentina. By all accounts the islands were uninhabited when they were discovered/claimed by the European powers.

I don't think that should be the sole determination. It's not finder's keepers.

Argentina has the strongest and only legitimate claim to the Malvinas, IMO. To allow the UK, Spain, or France to keep the Malvinas would simply be to reward colonialism. Moreover, Argentina, as mentioned above, probably has additional rights through Spain if we want to go through that route as well.

 

[Infohawk]

I disagree. It's relevant and sheds light on other posts. Many posts on a similar topic, across threads and days, are often linked in a common theme, intent, purpose, mental state, and context.

Can you please provide me with a link that states that a warning requires further discussion on an old topic that was misrepresented? Do you not think that cutting out large portions of a text clearly representing context is per se misrepresentation?

It's in one of the pages in the stickied thread about misquoting. Again, there is zero point to warning if you don't say what the misrepresentation is.

You state that I left out the part about genocide, but in other threads you didn't so clearly that's a red herring. And even if genocide is relevant, do you agree that this statement is accurate: You think the oil spill made a genocide in the UK more likely necessitating a US strike on London. Is that what your position was? Or were you just off-topic in multiple threads about the oil spill?

A dictionary game ultimately doesn't matter here. The point is that the US may not unconditionally support the UK in a military engagement like many here are posting.

In the US, we can call them either the Falklands or the Malvinas.

What is a dictionary game? Words have meanings defined in a dictionary. If you misuse words, you're being dishonest or you don't understand the word. Which one is it for you? I always hear the media call them the Falklands. Why don't you just use the word everyone else in this country uses? Is it somehow not accurate for you?

 

[Whiskey16]

When discussing state political jurisdiction, at least learn the fundamentals of geography, folks. Can't resist, after a number in this thread keep making the same fundamental mistake:

Would NATO assist England?

Falklands is in the middle of nowhere but England has proven that their greatly diminished empire still means something to them.

Couldn't England invoke Article V and call in all of NATO if attacked?

No such country. No documents referencing 'England' as far as NATO is concerned.

Let's move to more generic labels. England? A nation -- yes, but not as a country nor a state.


The political state that you folks are referring to is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

You're all about 3 centuries out of date. Time to catch up with your schooling.

Geographical proximity trumps finder's keepers.

Uhmm, no. Strike out 'proximity' and just go with geography. Political geography. As such, Argentina has zero legal claim upon the Falklands. Proximity as for entitlement means dick-all with already internationally recognised territory and the free choice of the native population.

Further, any repeat by Argentina in applying its armed forces would be that of a high crime of aggression and purely illegal as per the Charter of the United Nations. There are forums for the Argentines to appeal to if they feel crossed. As they have no valid claim, that state has long shunned any such reasonable diplomacy.

The ultimate moral and legal rational comes down to the right of self determination by the native population. No move away from the UK to Argentina is within the realm of current political possibility.

What the Argentines posses is a delusional bluster for domestic chest thumping unity. That's all this is, and unlike 3 decades ago, it will not again escalate beyond bullpit talk.

Regardless, be assured that tardiness upon getting the Royal Navy on station will not be repeated. Better prepared, the UK likely already has at least a single SSN again in these waters -- and certainly not so rushed down as in the past. The torpedoed ARA General Belgrano is certainly a sore point in Argentine pride, and this time no aggressor expeditionary force may feel secure in any approach upon the Falklands.

 

[dennilfloss]

The UK has no legitimate claim to those Islands.

The British discovered the islands. They've owned them for almost 200 years. Longtime effective occupancy is part of a legitimate claim. Plus the islanders wish to remain British.

http://www.thepicaproject.org/?page_id=750

 

[CanOWorms]

It's in one of the pages in the stickied thread about misquoting. Again, there is zero point to warning if you don't say what the misrepresentation is.

You state that I left out the part about genocide, but in other threads you didn't so clearly that's a red herring. And even if genocide is relevant, do you agree that this statement is accurate: You think the oil spill made a genocide in the UK more likely necessitating a US strike on London. Is that what your position was? Or were you just off-topic in multiple threads about the oil spill?

It says not to discuss it in public. As such, I suggest that we withdraw this line of discussion from this thread.

What is a dictionary game? Words have meanings defined in a dictionary. If you misuse words, you're being dishonest or you don't understand the word. Which one is it for you? I always hear the media call them the Falklands. Why don't you just use the word everyone else in this country uses? Is it somehow not accurate for you?

Words have many definitions, which come from many sources.

Again, the point is that the US may not unconditionally support the UK in a military engagement like many here are posting. The US has shifted away from the UK in regards to its position on the Malvinas.

I see the media use both Falklands and Malvinas. The State department uses both, too. I prefer Malvinas.

 

[Infohawk]

Plus the islanders wish to remain British.

This is the key thing. They are majority of British descent on the island. There's no reason people of European descent on the mainland have more claim than they do. Even if Argentina had a lot of indigenous peoples, there's no evidence they inhabited the Falklands.

 

[Infohawk]

It says not to discuss it in public. As such, I suggest that we withdraw this line of discussion from this thread.

Actually this is what it says:

That would fall under "intellectual dishonesty", if it is not true then it needs to be corrected.

I would expect Poster X to at least attempt to correct the misunderstanding.

Failing success in that effort, then yes, escalating the issue to the attention of a moderator by way of reporting the post would be the next action to take.

The mods have said that they can't read PMs. So it has to be in public if it needs to be proven. Anyway, it's true that we can end it here. You can try to complain to the mods if you feel I'm misrepresenting you, I would show them your posts and you would have nothing to stand on. Unless you wanted to say you were just trolling the oil spill threads with irrelevant stuff about genocide that you left out half the time.

I see the media use both Falklands and Malvinas.

The American media mostly uses Falklands. A quick google news search shows the main people using Malvinas are Argentinian sources.

 

[CanOWorms]

Plus the islanders wish to remain British.]

They can have both British and Argentinian citizenship. Or be able to choose. An international agreement transferring the Malvinas to Argentina can take into account the sentiment of the citizens, both current and those expelled.

 

[CanOWorms]

The mods have said that they can't read PMs. So it has to be in public if it needs to be proven. Anyway, it's true that we can end it here. You can try to complain to the mods if you feel I'm misrepresenting you, I would show them your posts and you would have nothing to stand on. Unless you wanted to say you were just trolling the oil spill threads with irrelevant stuff about genocide that you left out half the time.

I don't care enough about you to elevate it, so I'm just going to end it.

The American media mostly uses Falklands. A quick google news search shows the main people using Malvinas are Argentinian sources.

Yes, hopefully they will start referring it as the Malvinas. I've noticed that many have begun to refer to both names in articles or statements, such as the State Department's published statement.

 

[RabidMongoose]

They can have both British and Argentinian citizenship. Or be able to choose. An international agreement transferring the Malvinas to Argentina can take into account the sentiment of the citizens, both current and those expelled.

I think that is a very good solution. Control of the Malvinas could be handed over to Argentina, but the citizens can be granted dual British and Argentinian citizenship.

 

[Infohawk]

I don't care enough about you to elevate it, so I'm just going to end it.

Or because you know you posted exactly what I linked to and have nothing to stand on.

Yes, hopefully they will start referring it as the Malvinas. I've noticed that many have begun to refer to both names in articles or statements, such as the State Department's published statement.

The only reason the State Dept does it is to appear neutral. Just like they did in the early 80s before they backed the UK. There's nothing new here. And if you trust the State Dept so much you should realize they don't agree with any of your conspiracy theories about genocide or anything like that.

 

[CanOWorms]

The only reason the State Dept does it is to appear neutral.

Link? There's been quite a bit of activity on the US side.

Just like they did in the early 80s before they backed the UK. There's nothing new here. And if you trust the State Dept so much you should realize they don't agree with any of your conspiracy theories about genocide or anything like that.

I trust Barack Obama.

 

[RabidMongoose]

The only reason the State Dept does it is to appear neutral.

This implies that the US isn't neutral. What do you have to support such a claim?

Also, everyone, please take your personal issues to PMs. Moreover, as stated in the administrator post:

Do NOT respond in public, do not post to say you reported it, do not report it and then post in public with some witty retort that only serves to inflame the situation.

Thus, I think that these issues are best for PMs and if you feel slighted, then please bring it to moderator attention instead of engaging in off topic discussion. Thanks.

 

[Infohawk]

Link? There's been quite a bit of activity on the US side.

Link to what?

I trust Barack Obama.

So what? That's not evidence of anything.

 

[Infohawk]

This implies that the US isn't neutral. What do you have to support such a claim?

Their behavior in the last Falklands War. With regards to US - British relations, nothing has changed accept the ties are stronger from the war on terrorism.

 

[CanOWorms]

Link to what?

Link to evidence that the US activities, including the shift in the State Department's position, is merely to "appear" neutral.

So what? That's not evidence of anything.

It's not meant to be evidence of anything, but a response to your standard superfluous statements you usually include.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Their behavior in the last Falklands War. With regards to US - British relations, nothing has changed accept the ties are stronger from the war on terrorism.

Their behavior was 30 years ago. I would hope that you would have something more relevant. Moreover, the US-UK relations may be strong or weak, but that doesn't mean that the US is not neutral with regard to UK-Argentina.

Do you have any evidence aside from behavior from 30 years ago?

 

[cybrsage]

I think any land which is in close proximity to the United States should be controlled by the US. I consider close proximity to be anything closer to the United States than the furthest we have placed our nation's flag...which is the Moon.

All you people from other nations, sorry, you have to go. UK, you can stay, I like you guys. Sweden, the men must go....the women can stay.