Falklands War part 2?

[Screech]

The US should be giving land back to native Americans and should at the very least compensate the native Americas. Moreover, native Americans are part of the US as well. Thus, for your analogy to work, the Malvinas has to be part of Argentina.

In the US, the contemporary residents (read: white people) decided what to do regarding native american claims. In the falklands, the contemporary residents (read: the islanders who want nothing to do with argentina) have the same right. The analogy works perfectly.

 

[Infohawk]

The US should be giving land back to native Americans

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?

 

[Veliko]

All of the natives are now affiliated with South America because they lived in South America.

Regardless, even if you don't know of which ones, then still the interests should be transferred to South America for South Americans and natives to decide what should be done.

Says who?

Sorry, I don't buy that racist view. Everyone matters here, even non-Europeans.

Not in the 17th century they didn't.

So? Rights have transferred regardless at this point in time.

The transferral of those rights wasn't recognised by either Britain or the US at the time.

Again, then the Malvinas can be transferred to an international South American body to decide what to do. The fact that South American unity is only a recent thing is irrelevant. Natives from South America certainly visited the Malvinas first, so a south american organization is certainly more appropriate to deal with the Malvinas than the British.

The notion of a South American body that has any kind of legitimacy is hilarious. It would be worse than either the Arab League and the African Union.

Sorry, but I just don't buy into racist arguments where Europeans are the only ones that matter.

The US should be giving land back to native Americans and should at the very least compensate the native Americas. Moreover, native Americans are part of the US as well. Thus, for your analogy to work, the Malvinas has to be part of Argentina.

No, for the analogy to work all US citizens would have to move out of the US in order for the native Americans to take back their land.

Sorry, but the UK doesn't get any rights to the Malvinas for being the second ones to land there, the third or later ones to discover the Malvinas, the second one to settle on the Malvinas, etc. That makes no sense, usually the first acquires a right, not the second third or fourth.

Find the tribes who initially landed there. If you can't their claim is worthless.

 

[CanOWorms]

lol @ this thread, especially the pro-argentine side. You guys arguing in favor of argentina's position: did your ancestors 300 years ago own the land you currently live on? hmmm, probably not. So surely we should evict you from your home since some other native tribe previously owned it, right?

Oh, wait, you mean because you live there now, you think you should have the continued right to do so?

Fancy that. Same thing for the inhabitants of the islands. If they want to stay british they can stay british; if they want to switch to argentina they should have that right. Shockingly, they don't want to do that.

This is why bilateral talks on sovereignty should proceed. There are many scenarios where the current islanders can remain British. The descendants of those expelled by the British or other parties can then come in and seek to be Argentinian.

Argentina tried to take it by force, they failed, now they get to live with the consequences. Britain doesn't want them to have the island. The Islanders don't want them to have the island. They have no legitimate claim as nobody of argentinian affiliation beat Britain to the punch in landing there, and the current populace wants nothing to do with argentina.

This is just false. Please read this thread.

 

[RabidMongoose]

In the US, the contemporary residents (read: white people) decided what to do regarding native american claims. In the falklands, the contemporary residents (read: the islanders who want nothing to do with argentina) have the same right. The analogy works perfectly.

The residents of the Malvinas are not equivalent to native Americans.

As for 'contemporary residents', that is not a just solution. I don't find the 'contemporary residents' solution of the US against native Americans to be adequate at all. It is very immoral and unjust.

 

[CanOWorms]

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?

Do you believe that a city in the UK of people of primarily Pakistani descent for generations should no longer be under the UK if they desire?

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

 

[Veliko]

I didn't realize that time started in 1967. So yes, claiming "the presence has always been there" is completely bonkers.

What a boring attempt at semantics.

Moreover, the capabilities of the ship are greatly enhanced and they UK has been reported to be sending a nuclear submarine in the area.

Well, um, yes. The old ship is... old. So by default the newer one would be far more capable.

There is nothing wrong with that.

 

[CanOWorms]

What a boring attempt at semantics.

I'm merely mirroring you.

Well, um, yes. The old ship is... old. So by default the newer one would be far more capable.

There is nothing wrong with that.

We obviously disagree.

 

[Screech]

Thanks for posting your comment. I think that there is a difference between expelling people and national sovereignty here. The people who reside on the Malvinas can stay there. They don't need to be evicted. However, there is a separate issue as to which country rightfully owns the Malvinas. Moreover, the people currently there can be awarded dual British-Arg citizenship.

The Malvinas residents don't need to be evicted or expelled at all. Argentina is pretty peaceful, I doubt that they have any interest in expelling anyone.

Regardless of what argentina would do with the residents/their property/etc, they still don't want argentina to control the islands. Argentina's attempts here are simply attempted colonialism from the other side of the ocean just with different "natives".

I agree on dual citizenship though; perhaps that would be a pathway toward peaceful resolution.

Also, if argentina is peaceful, why did the original falklands way happen?

 

[RabidMongoose]

Says who?

South Americans, of course.

Not in the 17th century they didn't.

So? In 2012 they do. Racism doesn't have a legal effect in 2012, sorry.

The transferral of those rights wasn't recognised by either Britain or the US at the time.

Uh, that's the entire point of contention. For example, Argentina doesn't recognize the UK in the Malvinas. That's why there needs to be bilateral discussion.

The notion of a South American body that has any kind of legitimacy is hilarious. It would be worse than either the Arab League and the African Union.

How so? Can you please elaborate? South American countries, especially Argnetina, obviously have more legitimacy with regard to the Malvinas than the UK, whose apparent claim is being the second to land on the islands.

No, for the analogy to work all US citizens would have to move out of the US in order for the native Americans to take back their land.

That is fine with me.

Find the tribes who initially landed there. If you can't their claim is worthless.

They are South American. Do you think that Vikings landed on the Malvinas?

Sorry, but the UK doesn't get any rights to the Malvinas for being the second ones to land there, the third or later ones to discover the Malvinas, the second one to settle on the Malvinas, etc. That makes no sense, usually the first acquires a right, not the second third or fourth.

 

[Veliko]

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 pair of them are a complete embarrassment.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Regardless of what argentina would do with the residents/their property/etc, they still don't want argentina to control the islands. Argentina's attempts here are simply attempted colonialism from the other side of the ocean just with different "natives".

I agree on dual citizenship though; perhaps that would be a pathway toward peaceful resolution.

Yes, but I think that issues of national sovereignty have more to do with what the people who are there from conquest want. There are multiple factors.

Basically, the people there want to remain British after years of illegal British occupation and influence. This is basically a way to reward illegal conquest. This allows any country to invade any other section of land, hold it for some time, and then claim that the people there are fine with the status quo.

Also, if argentina is peaceful, why did the original falklands way happen?

That was 30 years ago when Argentina was under the control of a military junta. They're very peaceful now and have made no attempts at violence here.

 

[Screech]

This is why bilateral talks on sovereignty should proceed. There are many scenarios where the current islanders can remain British. The descendants of those expelled by the British or other parties can then come in and seek to be Argentinian.

Sounds fine, but I think the final choice should rest with the people actually living there in any case. So maybe trilateral talks

This is just false. Please read this thread.

regarding who was there first, this will turn into a shades of grey discussion, depending on who counts as 'argentinian', so we will have to agree to disagree. Regarding what the islanders want I believe they want to stay british but more power to them if they don't.

 

[Infohawk]

Do you believe that a city in the UK of people of primarily Pakistani descent for generations should no longer be under the UK if they desire?

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

I would like a response from the Rabidmongoose account to the questions and not simply the childish "I know you are but what am I" routine.

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?

 

[Screech]

Yes, but I think that issues of national sovereignty have more to do with what the people who are there from conquest want. There are multiple factors.

Basically, the people there want to remain British after years of illegal British occupation and influence. This is basically a way to reward illegal conquest. This allows any country to invade any other section of land, hold it for some time, and then claim that the people there are fine with the status quo.

If it was an illegal conquest who ruled the islands before the british and french and spanish got there and stole them? nobody. Yes, there were (i believe) previously native americans there but they had died off at some earlier time.

That was 30 years ago when Argentina was under the control of a military junta. They're very peaceful now and have made no attempts at violence here.

Fair enough, but then they will have to accept that britain will take no chances with what they regard (and what others regard) as their territory.

 

[RabidMongoose]

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?

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?

 

[CanOWorms]

I would like a response from the Rabidmongoose account to the questions and not simply the childish "I know you are but what am I" routine.

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?

Why don't you answer my question? Should a city of primary Pakistani descendants in the UK be able to secede the city from the UK and join another country they wish to be a part of?

 

[RabidMongoose]

If it was an illegal conquest who ruled the islands before the british and french and spanish got there and stole them? nobody. Yes, there were (i believe) previously native americans there but they had died off at some earlier time.

The history is that the British were basically only the first Europeans to land on the islands. The native groups of South America were the first to land. The Spanish were the first European discoverers. The French were the first ones to establish a settlement. Then the British established a settlement after the French. The Spanish then acquired the French settlement. Argentina inherited the Spanish claims.

I just don't see much of a historical connection to the Malvinas that gives a unique position to the British.

 

[Infohawk]

I never said anything about people needing to leave.

You said you thought the US should give back territory to the indigenous people. How much do you want to give back? Are you suggested they will get territory back, but then only indigenous people will be allowed to vote? What are YOU talking about?

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?

Where is this talk of succession coming from? The Falklands are already of the UK. What situation are you trying to analogize to with your UK Pakistani example?

 

[CanOWorms]

Where is this talk of succession coming from? The Falklands are already of the UK. What situation are you trying to analogize to with your UK Pakistani example?

The Malvinas are NOT part of the UK. It is a disputed territory.

You suggested that the most important factor should be the desire of the residents. What about the desire in the hypo? If you object to that hypo, then imagine a hypo wherein the Pakistani embassy accidentally overbuilt and now contains an entire neighborhood. They are now occupying this neighborhood. The majority of residents in the neighborhood wish to be a part of Pakistan. Do you respect their wishes?

 

[Screech]

This is why, when you play civilization 4, you always want to settle that little region that you think is safely behind your capital early in the game even though you think it will be safe while you send settlers elsewhere toward the resources near other civilizations.....eventually some group of assholes who have researched naval trade will drop a settler on that spot of land and you will be shit out of luck.

 

[RabidMongoose]

You said you thought the US should give back territory to the indigenous people. How much do you want to give back? Are you suggested they will get territory back, but then only indigenous people will be allowed to vote? What are YOU talking about?

I'm merely stating that additional compensation is just.

Where is this talk of succession coming from? The Falklands are already of the UK. What situation are you trying to analogize to with your UK Pakistani example?

It's a hypothetical situation. Can you answer it? I'd be curious for your answer and to see if you accord mere vote of the people to a land's sovereignty.

 

[Infohawk]

I'm merely stating that additional compensation is just.

Really? It didn't sound like that. You said territory should be given back. Are you changing your opinion now? You also said the Argentinians s

It's a hypothetical situation. Can you answer it? I'd be curious for your answer and to see if you accord mere vote of the people to a land's sovereignty.

The issue of succession isn't really relevant here since the inhabitants of the Falklands never declared independence from Argentina. They were British colonists who stayed British.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Really? It didn't sound like that. You said territory should be given back. Are you changing your opinion now? You also said the Argentinians s

I have said for quite some time that I would be fine if the residents of the Malvinas stay. I've mentioned issues of dual citizenship, transitional phase to change sovereignty, etc.

The solution does not require expelling the residents of the Malvinas.

The issue of succession isn't really relevant here since the inhabitants of the Falklands never declared independence from Argentina. They were British colonists who stayed British.

Of course it's relevant. It shows how much you accord the sovereignty of land based on the popular referendum of the residents of the land. Why are you dodging the question?

I don't see why a popular referendum of the people currently residing in the Malvinas would settle the issue. Otherwise, Argentina could just occupy whatever it wanted, put its people there, wait 100 years, and then take a referendum.

 

[Infohawk]

I have said for quite some time that I would be fine if the residents of the Malvinas stay. I've mentioned issues of dual citizenship, transitional phase to change sovereignty, etc.

The solution does not require expelling the residents of the Malvinas.

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

The US should be giving land back to native Americans

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?

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.