Jaskalas
Lifer
- Jun 23, 2004
- 35,952
- 10,295
- 136
That's generally correct unless the current residents decide otherwise, as it is in this case.
Like illegals, we don't care how they got there, no one is removing them by force.
That's generally correct unless the current residents decide otherwise, as it is in this case.
Like illegals, we don't care how they got there, no one is removing them by force.
feralkid
Lifer
- Jan 28, 2002
- 16,917
- 5,018
- 136
His approval is still around 50% among Venezuelans.
Same with Obama
Meanwhile our congress is at 10%.
monovillage
Diamond Member
- Jul 3, 2008
- 8,444
- 1
- 0
How would you know? You think that in a nation like Venezuela when a Government or "official" pollster asks you if you like or dislike Esteemed President Hugo Chavez you're going to feel free to tell the truth?
That's generic Congress, if you were trying to be honest you'd ask the people in a district about their particular Congressperson. If, you were trying to be honest.
Yeah this is what I find frustrating with the pro-Argentina posters. Their argument seems to be the Argentina is closest (300 miles) which automatically trumps all of the UK's claims.
It's not history, it's not settlement, it's not will of the people - it's distance.
Funny - Cuba at it's closest point is 98 miles from Florida - the Falklands are 3X the distance. I don't see how Argentina gets to claim default ownership at that distance.
I don't know about the other pro-Argentina posters, but my argument is not solely based upon distance. I've laid out many of them in this thread. However, what I find frustrating with the pro-UK posters is that their argument seems to be a justification of colonialism and the actions of the most evil organization to ever exist - the British Empire. But even if we adopt the colonialist justification, it seems that Argentina has the strongest claim. It makes no sense for the UK to have the Malvinas.
Moreover, many of the pro-UK posters are wishing genocide upon the Argentinian population. It's very troubling.
I consider a variety of factors. Most tip towards Argentina, some towards the UK. I look at geographic proximity, history, efficient/proper use of territory, local continental opinion, world opinion, population, "evilness" when acquired, and perhaps other factors. Since most tip towards Argentina, but not all, I am currently advocating a co-sovereignty approach.
Additionally, I suggest a co-sovereignty approach to be pro-UK as I don't consider the UK to be able to hold on to the Malvinas for too long. The Empire will be dismantled. It's only a matter of time. However, many types of co-sovereignty arrangements can maintain a UK attachment to the islands.
Last edited:
WelshBloke
Lifer
- Jan 12, 2005
- 33,292
- 11,424
- 136
That is a lie or you are simply mistaken. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I have even provided a very detailed response to you and you didn't even bother responding.
Again, I have put up Argentinian arguments for quite a while. Moreover, this would be the equivalent of me saying that pro-UK posters simply say "You are wrong" and nothing else when it comes to reasons why the British should have the Malvinas.
The UK discovered the Malvinas? That is factually incorrect. The Malvinas were discovered by native populations, which are from South America. The British were not even the first Europeans to discover the Malvinas, that is the Spanish. Moreover, the British colonists have only been on the Malvinas for 150+ years because the British illegally occupied the Malvinas from the Argentinians.
Please tell me how the UK has some sort of historical connection to the Malvinas when:
1. They were not the discoverers of the Malvinas. That belongs to South American native populations.
2. They were not the first European discoverers. That belongs to the Spanish.
3. They were not the first who established a settlement on the Malvinas. That belongs to the French that was subsequently acquired by the Spanish and then inherited by the Argentinians.
So how in the world does the UK have a more important historical connection to the Malvinas if they were not the first to discover it, they were not the first to arrive on those lands, they were not the first to settle those lands? They may have been the first Europeans to step foot on those lands, but obviously native populations came onto those lands much earlier.
If we want to include these historical connections, then obviously Argentina inherits claims of the first discovers (native populations), first European discoverers (Spanish), first to land on the islands (native populations), and first to possess the islands with settlement (French which was acquired by the Spanish and inherited by the Argentinians).
Thus, if we go by this historical context, some of Argentina's claims would be:
1. Geographical proximity.
2. Native populations first visited the Malvinas.
3. The Spanish first sighted the Malvinas (inherited by Argentina upon independence)
4. The French were the first to settle in the Malvinas, the Spanish acquired this interest, and then the Argentinians acquired it at independence.
5. The Argentinians were actually attacked by the British in an act of aggression and colonialism.
6. Argentina has maintained their position this entire time.
Meanwhile, the UK's claims are:
1. Please reward hostile colonialism.
Please address the above historical facts.
Last edited:
Not at all. But the pro-UK argument simply seems to be "The UK attacked and illegally colonized and thus should be rewarded, despite continued protest from Argentina."
The entire UK argument essentially comes from an illegal British occupation and invasion that expelled the Argentinians. This is not an action that should be rewarded.
In the end, the UK owning the Malvinas makes about as much sense as Mongolia owning them.
I could see a transitional phase working out. Say for the next 25-50 years, newborns in the Malvinas can be granted both dual Argentina-UK citizenship. After the 25-50 year period, the Malvinas can be transferred to Argentinian sovereignty.
Interesting letter from the Argentine ambassador to the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/09/opinion/argentinas-position-on-the-falklands.html
Argentina is so committed to peace that it has even mandated it in its own Constitution. That is admirable.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/09/opinion/argentinas-position-on-the-falklands.html
Argentina is so committed to peace that it has even mandated it in its own Constitution. That is admirable.
Just out of interest is there anyone on the pro-Argentina side that can actually discuss things rationally?
Yes. I and others have provided several rational discussions, bring up facts, and provide links related to the discussions and evolving events. However, you're not interested in discussion. You're merely looking for agreement, or discussion on posters of politics and news rather than a discussion on the politics and news.
Fascinating. Argentina seems so committed to a peaceful resolution, yet the UK's response is further militarization of the South Atlantic.
You qoute Wikipedia and then ignore direct questions put to you.
What 'native populations'? Where is the proof and documentation of this? When was the last time they put a claim in?
The British discovered it in 1690. When did the Spanish discover them?
The British had a colony there in 1765. Argentina didn't exist until at least 1810.
Utterly impossible when Argentina didn't exist until the 19th century.
Spain is not Argentina.
It is impossible for Argentina to be the first to land on islands that were discovered before the nation even existed.
What does 'acquired' mean?
What does 'inherited' mean?
I have done. Once again.
Are you going to bother answering the questions?
WelshBloke
Lifer
- Jan 12, 2005
- 33,292
- 11,424
- 136
Erm, no. You constantly refer to the 'evil British empire' in countless threads. In this thread you state that the UK wants to commit genocide on the Argentinian people.
There is nothing rational about anything you are saying.
That is a falsehood.
Native populations from South America. Evidence of their visiting of the Malvinas has been found, including various artifacts on the Malvinas. They now live in South America, so the claim is from Argentina obviously.
The Malvinas were discovered by the Spanish in the 1500s. It even appears on maps of the times.
The French had a colony in the Malvinas before 1765. The Spanish acquired that interest and Argentina acquired the Spanish interest upon independence.
Acquired means that the Spanish paid and agreed with the French to transfer ownership of the first European colony on the Malvinas from the French to the Spanish. Inherited means that the Argentinians acquired the rights from the Spanish in treaty upon independence.
Spain is not Argentina. However, Argentina acquired Spain's interest.
Moreover, natives from South America were the first to land on the islands, not the British.
I have already answered the questions.
It seems that you refuse to believe in the words 'acquire' and 'inherit.' Are you saying that countries cannot transfer any interest in property to another country? How about governments? In effect, you are saying that these interests are not transferrable, which is preposterous.
How can the UK have a historical right to the Malvinas if they weren't the first to land on it, they were not the first to discover it, they were not the first Europeans to discover it, they were not the first to settle on it? This makes no sense.
Last edited:
The UK indeed has a choice. Their actions can reflect the desires of the international community, and much of the Western hemisphere. Nobody is forcing them to militarize.
Please stop lying. I did not claim that the UK wishes to commit genocide upon Argentinians in this thread. The pro-UK posters have suggested it genocide. One member recommended blanketing Argentina in sarin gas.
There is no truth in anything you are saying.
No. In case you're not familiar with them COW/Rabid start of from a point of being anti-UK on whatever topic it is and work backwards. They have a deep irrational hatred for the UK. They bring up the UK or the monarchy even when it's not relevant, so of course they're going to town in this thread. You're never going to get a reasonable response from them on just about any topic.
The only other posters who've defended Argentina seem to have started from the mistaken impression that Argentinians are some indigenous group who are still fighting off colonial hold-outs. In the case of Argentina, that's less true than just about any other country in South America. They're European descendants just like the Falkand inhabitants.
The only real question is the oil rights. It does seem a bit arbitrary that a mere 3,000 inhabitants can trigger lucrative ownership of natural resources. But this is a problem everywhere and the British were willing to share the oil despite not being obligated to.
There are many possibilities. That seems like one that may be feasible.
Bilateral talks on sovereignty need to proceed in order to iron everything out and perhaps find better scenarios.
WelshBloke
Lifer
- Jan 12, 2005
- 33,292
- 11,424
- 136
Apart from the sabre rattling coming from South America.
And I meant that Argentina doesn't have much choice.
I would like to discuss this issue, but it appears that you feel that 'rationally' means agreement with you. I disagree with that assumption.
Please let me know if you would like to continue discussing this issue with no personal attacks. Thanks.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter