Falklands War part 2?

[BladeVenom]

I agree. You don't inherit rights from mere conquering. But if people are part of a country and involved in its democratic process, then obviously the country inherits the rights of its own people.

Those living in the Falklands, are involved in the democratic process. So then by your standards, the Island should be British.

Anything else is perverse and basically declaring people to not even be humans.

That's what Argentina wants.

Argentina has native citizens and is asking for the Malvinas.

There are no Falkland natives in Argentina who want the Falklands back. There were never any Falkland natives.

If the people were fine with being British citizens.

That's what everyone on the Falklands wants.

If you don't think that conquest is OK, then why do you support the illegitimate UK conquest of the Malvinas?

Your premise is wrong.

Again, this is an issue with Argentina and the UK. Obviously the Argentines have much more claims and stronger claims than the British, whose only claim is through illegitimate conquest.

No they don't. Just because you keep repeating the same flawed argument, doesn't give it any more legitimacy.

Time has passed. So if Argentina invades an island and time passes again, would you be fine with Argentina keeping the land that it has invaded?

If they had it for over a 100 years, and everyone on the island wanted to be citizens of Argentina, then I think it should be there's.

 

[Infohawk]

There really are no significant issues with modern territorial boundaries with regard to the Malvinas. It is not complicated to transfer sovereignty from the UK to the Argentines. We're talking about small islands thousands of miles away from the UK and close to Argentina with only 3000 people on them.

So you're saying since there's only a few thousand people they don't matter? Is that why you don't think the American Indians shouldn't get their land back? Because there are so few of them today?

I'm still wondering if you are consistent about people getting their conquered territory back. Do you think the US should give all its territory back to native Americans, or is it only the UK that needs to do that because you hate them?

 

[RabidMongoose]

No they don't. Just because you keep repeating the same flawed argument, doesn't give it any more legitimacy.

There are a lot more Argentine valid claims than there are British.

If they had it for over a 100 years, and everyone on the island wanted to be citizens of Argentina, then I think it should be there's.

At least you are being consistent here, unlike InfoHawk. I commend you for that.

 

[RabidMongoose]

So you're saying since there's only a few thousand people they don't matter? Is that why you don't think the American Indians shouldn't get their land back? Because there are so few of them today?

I'm still wondering if you are consistent about people getting their conquered territory back. Do you think the US should give all its territory back to native Americans, or is it only the UK that needs to do that because you hate them?

I think that people matter, but it is not solely determinative, especially if they are there from illegitimate conquest.

If you believe that conquest is not appropriate, then the UK should return the Malvinas to the Argentines. This is an incredibly easy solution considering that the UK has almost no real connection to the Malvinas.

If you think that this solution is not tenable, then you actually believe that conquest is fine and appropriate, because this is probably the easiest thing to accomplish considering the little connections the UK has to the Malvinas.

 

[CanOWorms]

So what? Of course if Argentina is saber-rattling the UK is going to defend its territory.

As I've stated, in light of Argentina's statements and the escalating conflict, the integrity of the treaty should be verified.

 

[Infohawk]

At least you are being consistent here, unlike InfoHawk. I commend you for that.

I said if Argentina had had possession of a former UK island for 150 years and Argentinians lived there I would recognize their claim. That is what Venom is talking about too.

Now if you said TODAY Argentina attacked a British island and put people there, I would not approve of their claim. I doubt most other people would either.

 

[Infohawk]

I think that people matter, but it is not solely determinative, especially if they are there from illegitimate conquest.

If you believe that conquest is not appropriate, then the UK should return the Malvinas to the Argentines. This is an incredibly easy solution considering that the UK has almost no real connection to the Malvinas.

If you think that this solution is not tenable, then you actually believe that conquest is fine and appropriate, because this is probably the easiest thing to accomplish considering the little connections the UK has to the Malvinas.

Let me know when you want to explain why you hold the US to a different standard than the UK. It undermines your argument that you're not merely bashing the UK as usual.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Let me know when you want to explain why you hold the UK to a different standard than the UK. It undermines your argument that you're not merely bashing the UK as usual.

How can I hold something to a different standard to itself?

I am the one who wants to apply the same standard to everyone. In fact, I want to ensure that the rules of illegitimate conquest do not apply. If you agree that illegitimate conquest is not appropriate, then the issue of the Malvinas is the most perfect place to enact the just position.

Let me know when you want to apply the standard that you apply to the UK to a non-European entity. Otherwise, this is the same pro-UK BS from you as usual.

 

[BladeVenom]

There are a lot more Argentine valid claims than there are British.

I see 3000+ people on the Falklands who want to remain a part of the UK? How many people who live on the island want to be citizens of Argentina.

 

[RabidMongoose]

I see 3000+ people on the Falklands who want to remain a part of the UK? How many people who live on the island want to be citizens of Argentina.

They are there from illegitimate conquest.

The claims are:
1. All historical claims favor Argentina.
2. Geographical claims favor Argentina
3. Continental shelf claims favor Argentina

The UK has nothing outside of an illegitimate conquest that Argentina has protested from the very beginning.

The UK owning the Malvinas makes about as much sense as Mongolia owning them.

 

[Infohawk]

How can I hold something to a different standard to itself?

I am the one who wants to apply the same standard to everyone. In fact, I want to ensure that the rules of illegitimate conquest do not apply. If you agree that illegitimate conquest is not appropriate, then the issue of the Malvinas is the most perfect place to enact the just position.

Let me know when you want to apply the standard that you apply to the UK to a non-European entity. Otherwise, this is the same pro-UK BS from you as usual.

I apply the same standard to the UK as I do to the US. I've made that clear. Your standard is different. When the US conquers a people, you don't claim they need to cede back all the conquered territory. When the UK does it, you cry foul and claim the only difference is some irrelevant domestic / international distinction that only exists because the US completely conquered its opponent.

The UK owning the Malvinas makes about as much sense as Mongolia owning them.

There are 3000 Mongolians on the island? Mongolia's had possession of the island for 150 years?

 

[RabidMongoose]

I apply the same standard to the UK as I do to the US. I've made that clear. Your standard is different. When the US conquers a people, you don't claim they need to cede back all the conquered territory. When the UK does it, you cry foul and claim the only difference is some irrelevant domestic / international distinction that only exists because the US completely conquered its opponent.

No, you apply a different standard to the UK than you do with Argentina.

When the UK conquers people, it's great because it's the UK. In a situation where a non-UK entity conquers, you cry foul and make up excuses about arbitrary time deadlines that have no basis.

If you actually cared about not legitimizing conquest, then transferring the Malvinas to the Argentina is a logical and just position, and you would be in favor of it as it has almost insignificant issues with regard to territorial issues. Instead, you just keep making up excuses with your non european double standard

 

[Infohawk]

No, you apply a different standard to the UK than you do with Argentina.

When the UK conquers people, it's great because it's the UK. In a situation where a non-UK entity conquers, you cry foul and make up excuses about arbitrary time deadlines that have no basis.

If you actually cared about not legitimizing conquest, then transferring the Malvinas to the Argentina is a logical and just position, and you would be in favor of it as it has almost insignificant issues with regard to territorial issues. Instead, you just keep making up excuses with your non european double standard

Actually I apply the same standard to Argentina than to the UK. Argentina's land is all from illegitimate colonial activity. But since so much time has passed, I recognize most of their territorial boundaries (except the Falklands).

Meanwhile, you accept their unilateral colonization along with the USA's, but only take issue with the UK.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Actually I apply the same standard to Argentina than to the UK. Argentina's land is all from illegitimate colonial activity. But since so much time has passed, I recognize most of their territorial boundaries (except the Falklands).

Meanwhile, you accept their unilateral colonization along with the USA's, but only take issue with the UK.

No, you don't apply the same standard to Argentina as you do the UK.

I apply the same to the US as I am to the UK. For example, if the US has occupied territory that another nation claims, then that should be discussed and solved. For example, if there is a pacific island under US control that another nation claims, then that should obviously be resolved and I woudl most likely side with the other nation.

however, you are elevating the UK above the Argentines with an arbitrary time deadline that has no basis. You basically are saying that everything that the UK has done is fine, but if anyone does the same then it is wrong. That is the very essence of double standard.

 

[Infohawk]

No, you don't apply the same standard to Argentina as you do the UK.

How so?

Let me know when you want to explain why the UK is the only country that is not allowed to keep its colonial possessions, even when it involves an island that no Argentines live on.

 

[RabidMongoose]

How so?

Let me know when you want to explain why the UK is the only country that is not allowed to keep its colonial possessions, even when it involves an island that no Argentines live on.

Actually, I don't think that the US should be allowed to keep its colonial possessions if another nation has a credible claim. My position is consistent for all nations, even the UK. I don't make up BS excuses that have no basis in anything. For example, I bet that there are, say, pacific islands under US control that should not be US possessions today.

Meanwhile, you are saying that everything the UK has done is fine, but if others do it then it isn't fine just because of an arbitrary date cutoff that you have somehow come up with.

 

[Infohawk]

Actually, I don't think that the US should be allowed to keep its colonial possessions if another nation has a credible claim. My position is consistent for all nations, even the UK. I don't make up BS excuses that have no basis in anything. For example, I bet that there are, say, pacific islands under US control that should not be US possessions today.

Meanwhile, you are saying that everything the UK has done is fine, but if others do it then it isn't fine just because of an arbitrary date cutoff that you have somehow come up with.

You don't think the Cherokee nation would have a claim on the US? Most of the native tribes would want their land back if it were in the realm of possibility.

I actually said much of what the UK has done is not OK. I don't think it was the Indo-Aryan invasian of India was OK either, but I'm not going to start telling millions of people in South Asia to go back to where their ancestors came from. How far back do you think we should try to undo border changes?

 

[RabidMongoose]

You don't think the Cherokee nation would have a claim on the US? Most of the native tribes would want their land back if it were in the realm of possibility.

I actually said much of what the UK has done is not OK. I don't think it was the Indo-Aryan invasian of India was OK either, but I'm not going to start telling millions of people in South Asia to go back to where their ancestors came from. How far back do you think we should try to undo border changes?

I'm talking about sovereign nations here. So if the US has an island somewhere and another nation claims it, then I would most likely side with that other nation if it isn't a colonial power.

I'm not sure how far we should go back, but obviously the Malvinas are a pretty straight forward issue that isn't very complicated. It is very isolated and poses almost no problems. If you are serious about not awarding illegitimate violent aggression, then this issue should be very straightforward for you.

Now if there were a lot of factors that made transfer of sovereignty impossible, then I could see your point. However, the Malvinas have almost no connection to the UK. Transfer of sovereignty here is probably one of the easiest issues to fix in the entire world. There could even be a gradual transfer as previously discussed.

If you want to say that transfer of sovereignty of a landmass where populations have intermixed over thousands of years is established and now too difficult to address and resolve, that may be fine. However, that is obviously not the case with the Malvinas. If you are sincere in seeking a just outcome, then transfer of sovereignty here is just about the easiest thing that could be done out of any disputed territory in the entire world.

 

[Infohawk]

I'm talking about sovereign nations here. So if the US has an island somewhere and another nation claims it, then I would most likely side with that other nation if it isn't a colonial power.

You say I have a cut-off, but what is the cut-off for YOU? It sounds like 240 years (like the USA) is too far, but somehow 180 years is that different?

And it's troubling that you think just because there's not a large group of people that you think their interests can be disregarded. I don't think the fact that there's only 3,000 Falkland Islanders makes their desires illegitimate.

 

[CanOWorms]

If you are sincere in seeking a just outcome, then transfer of sovereignty here is just about the easiest thing that could be done out of any disputed territory in the entire world.

This is a good point. The UK also has experience with transfer of territories with Hong Kong, which had millions of people. Here, we only have 3000.

 

[RabidMongoose]

You say I have a cut-off, but what is the cut-off for YOU? It sounds like 240 years (like the USA) is too far, but somehow 180 years is that different?

And it's troubling that you think just because there's not a large group of people that you think their interests can be disregarded. I don't think the fact that there's only 3,000 Falkland Islanders makes their desires illegitimate.

I have no cutoff for the US. If the US occupies any island that another country has a more legitimate claim to, then the US should relinquish that island. The fact that it may be 300 years, 200 years, 100 years, or 10 years is irrelevant to me.

However, you have come up with some sort of arbitrary cutoff that you randomly came up with that magically lines up with UK activity. How convenient!

The only issue that I have some agreement with you is if the separation is too entangled, too established and thus too difficult to resolve. However, that is obviously not going to be the case for almost any island and especially an island that is thousands of miles away from its 'parent' country, whether it's the US or the UK.

The interests of the 3000 Malvinas residents isn't disregarded. There can be a transitional phase (say after 50-100 years so all 3000 Malvinas residents can be under UK control) and nobody is asking for them to be expelled. Morover, they could even be granted dual citizenship and Argentina is a very vibrant democracy.

Anyways, you are the one with the arbitrary cutoff date that magically blesses everything the UK has done. I don't even give the US a magical cutoff date.

 

[RabidMongoose]

This is a good point. The UK also has experience with transfer of territories with Hong Kong, which had millions of people. Here, we only have 3000.

Yes. If you actually don't believe in illegitimate conquest, as Infohawk claims, then this is probably the easiest solution in the entire world.

If you oppose this, then you essentially are blessing illegitimate conquest because I cannot imagine a more straight forward and uncomplicated issue today.

I could understand Infohawk's position if it would be difficult to transfer sovereignty or if it would be transferred to a despotic regime. But Argentina is very peaceful and a great democracy and the Malvinas are so isolated from the UK that it's already reliant on South America.

 

[Infohawk]

I have no cutoff for the US. If the US occupies any island that another country has a more legitimate claim to, then the US should relinquish that island.

I forgot. If you completely vanquish your enemy there is no time limit. Tough crap for the American Indians. They were not allowed to have an independent government so they don't get their territory back.

The interests of the 3000 Malvinas residents isn't disregarded. There can be a transitional phase (say after 50-100 years so all 3000 Malvinas residents can remain there while it is under UK control) and nobody is asking for them to be expelled.

They shouldn't have to do anything a government that is not of their choosing wants them to do. Their great-grandchildren should be allowed to live on the island under their own government if they want to.

 

[Abwx]

You say I have a cut-off, but what is the cut-off for YOU? It sounds like 240 years (like the USA) is too far, but somehow 180 years is that different?

And it's troubling that you think just because there's not a large group of people that you think their interests can be disregarded. I don't think the fact that there's only 3,000 Falkland Islanders makes their desires illegitimate.

Then it would be legal for China to invade let s say Alaska , bring
30 millions chineses there and wait for one or two centuries and then
see her conquest branded legitimate by Infohoax s grandchildren.....

 

[Infohawk]

Then it would be legal for China to invade let s say Alaska , bring
30 millions chineses there and wait for one or two centuries and then
see her conquest branded legitimate by Infohoax s grandchildren.....

Not at all. You totally misunderstood my posts.