51 replies to this topic

[ZZEZ]

Whats the point of owning the Falklands anyways? It's not that vital and the war fought for it was pointless IMO.

[BloodBane611]

Shame NATO doesn't extend to overseas territories. Maybe an extension this way needs to be ratified.

That's incorrect. Article 5 explicitly applies to overseas territories in North Africa and in the North Atlantic. However, NATO was founded with one clear goal - opposing Soviet Russian expansion in Western Europe. It is not a wholesale alliance, and it could never be extended to cover more than that. The only two countries which could really benefit from such a move are the US and UK, and the US doesn't want any part in defense of the Falklands, so it won't happen.

Whats the point of owning the Falklands anyways? It's not that vital and the war fought for it was pointless IMO.

First war was dickwaving. Currently, the question relates to putative vast oil deposits in the economic zone around the islands. Of course, it is dominated by yet more dickwaving, but there is real wealth at stake this time.

[Limey]

Yes Facts are like you say, basic data, that is neutral and can be interpreted as different ways.

But you are not only stating data as facts!

Here is some underlying arguments, that needs to be true for you base line to be true.

1- "The island had prior to European discovery no inhabitants" That is basically data, as long as you are sure to have inhabitants restricted to only humans, and not animals!

2- "Ownership is not based on proximity" Well that is surely not a fact, that is a opinion, and if I have to agree on this to participate in the discussion, you are basically saying that only people that agree with you can argue with you !

3A- "Argentina did not exist when the islands were discovered" Again I believe that you imply to the country Argentina. Yes that the country was not a independent state upon Falklands discovery is basically neutral Data. Nothing really to argue about. Just can't see where it fits in the argument about the control of the Falklands.

3B- " no future Argentinians were on the island" unsure what you are stating. Are you stating that there have never been any Argentinians on the Island, or that there were no Argentinians on the island prior to the European discovery ?

4- "The rightful citizens of the Falkland wish to be an overseas territory" This is a opinion, not a fact. You are stating rightful citizen, but that implies that not anyone on the island is accepted to have an opinion! I would like to explain what a rightful citizen is.

5- "Argentina are the state truly acting colonial with their disrespect of the current/historic inhabitants in ignoring their desires/allegiance" This is again an opinion, not a fact ! that Argentina is acting colonial, implies that Argentina is expanding a colony in a different territory that their own. So basically you are saying that Argentina is trying to take a country that is not a part of Argentina. Some might disagree with you here !

I will not continues at this moment, but I think that this shows that you are mixing opinions with arguments, to verify them as true statements.
Also when you put quotes as arguments, please make references to where or who or when they come from !

I think you are mixing data with facts and the differentiation asserted is weak in contouring any deeper meaning. The definition of 'data' after all is:
"Facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis."
Nitpicking the usage of a word much to look for a mistake where there is none? In fact, I'd argue it's worse when the definition delineated is...in fact...wrong according to all accounts of dictionaries and exposition into the concepts of these words.

Although many of these are facts (or data as you would insist must be ascribed to them without any basis but your imposing thoughts), I have naturally included my opinions and thoughts on how they apply to the 'paradigm' (another semantic play of yours, purely superficial) of my perspective. The title says 'facts', mhmm, but that doesn't summarize the whole approach and that is clear with the subsequent content.

You're disagreeing with points and not saying why, referencing ambiguities as 'someone might disagree with you here" or choosing how my thoughts are to develop with:

"You are basically saying that only people that agree with you can argue with you"
I never said this, it's nowhere and only a very far-reaching interpretation would muster this conclusion, beyond the perimeters of my wording to any logical sense.

"You are stating rightful citizen, but that implies that not anyone on the island is accepted to have an opinion! I would like to explain what a rightful citizen is."
Nowhere is their opinions denied? Where do I state their opinion is such? I'm discussing my opinion on the topic, not individual citizens' opinions...

Edited by Limey, 2013-03-27 @ 08:59.

[StatusRed]

Whats the point of owning the Falklands anyways? It's not that vital and the war fought for it was pointless IMO.

What BloodBane said:

First war was dickwaving. Currently, the question relates to putative vast oil deposits in the economic zone around the islands. Of course, it is dominated by yet more dickwaving, but there is real wealth at stake this time.

It's also worth noting that not only is the actual oil valuable but so is the industry around providing for the people in the oil business. For example a lot of the Islanders will make good money providing services for the off shore workers. Basically the Falkland Islands are in a prime location.

[Golfed]

All about that oil. But then again, being American I cant say much.

[Elesium]

Limey, please listen. In the nicest possible terms, you are not God. Nor are you an expert on the Falklands Situation. You have stated a series of opinions (that I challenged most/all yet you ignored as most internet trolls do) and when it is pointed out, you get ultra defensive and attack the person who has disagreed with you. This is the 3rd such thread you have begun that has had no bearing on anything at all and merely there for you to get your troll rocks off. Please refrain from doing this.

[Limey]

Limey, please listen. In the nicest possible terms, you are not God. Nor are you an expert on the Falklands Situation. You have stated a series of opinions (that I challenged most/all yet you ignored as most internet trolls do) and when it is pointed out, you get ultra defensive and attack the person who has disagreed with you. This is the 3rd such thread you have begun that has had no bearing on anything at all and merely there for you to get your troll rocks off. Please refrain from doing this.

I missed your comment with an influx of comments, I''m sorry, and will reply now I've been alerted to it. No need for insults about arrogance or accusations on trolling!

JB is right, if you want a discussion, pose a question don't just say 'these are the facts'. I will respond to your 'facts' step by step. Personally I believe the Referendum showed the Falklands Islanders wishes and that is the be all and end all.

1 - True there were no inhabitants prior to the discovery however this isn't relevant to the cause for ownership. Neither side gains anything from it having had a previous culture based there.

2 - This is true to some extent, however most countries only have sovereignty now over countries close to or part of the large whole. Even the commonwealth has been watered down and the United Kingdom is not so much as seen by all the referendums put in place by Wales, Scotland etc. Being close to a country does not give ownership, however being this far away from somewhere is grounds for non-ownership.

3 - The state of Argentina may not have existed, however the claims were made by the Spanish settlers in Argentina and further to this many different countries have laid claim including England and France.

4 - This to me is important if you want to maintain the democracy, you vote on what the Islanders wish. This is ignored by Argentina as they see these people as merely English invaders and thus are both biased and just another representation of the UK governments underhanded tactics.

5 - Argentina are not acting colonial, they are acting as any troubled country might, if your economy is falling apart, you have no support of your people, then give them something that they want. They want the Islands returned and if you are vowing to return Las Malvinas then you will get votes and popularity from your people. Good politics.

6 - Argentina invaded Falklands with cause, to them they own it. The same reason we sent a task force to re-capture it, is that we own it. Both have claims, not fabricated but actual claims. It is just near impossible to decipher when such claims were made, which supercede which etc.

7 - Any country that has troubles with human rights will 'throw stones' if you are too busy defending yourself you will not be attacking them. That is the theory anyway.

8 - British taxpayers have spent a lot of money on a lot of things, at the end of the day, how much do we really know where the money goes? Also the Falklands has less than 3000 people, not really the worlds biggest democracy and I believe it is wrong to try and see we have created a political system there.

9 - Then send them back to Britain, that is the argument of the Argentinians. They aren't natives, they are just vagrants living on their land. Their is also a wide range of ethnicities present with immigrations being a major part of what keeps the Island from being in population decline.

10 - The UN has been rather toothless on the whole issue, the UN is not this great all powerful force for world peace. Do not drink the cool aid, it is not good for you. They are largely happy to just let the UK and Argentina squabble over this tiny patch of nothingness. They have also spoken on behalf of both sides.



Hope that addresses some of your points, and though I may be incorrect in some of this, what I do know is right, is that you stated a lot of 'opinions' rather than facts.

1 - You don't think original settlement is a valid premise of being ARTIFICIALLY indigenous?
2 - We have no dispute here, I believe, and I think this was most true before the invention of wireless communication: difficulties with ordering/governing from afar due to communication difficulties. There is also the issue of cultural separation due to isolation from the mainland and a feeling of being 'distant' in being as well to warrant a tangible separation. Nevertheless, I'd argue if the right liaison is made as communication, as is the case with the Falklands, and there is a sincere bond with the linked regime for positive reasons (e.g. trade, culture, language, defense), there is no issue.
3 - This is indeed true, but as I mentioned with the European conflict, they were defeated and this normally decided ownership during the colonial era, as was the case with multiple conflicts from the 17th to 19th century (i.e. Cape Colony being annexed from the Dutch, consequently becoming'British').
4 - The fact is, nevertheless, they're not invaders and their proposition is highly flawed....
5 - No matter the underpinnings, I do believe they're acting colonial when they want to steal territory from the artificially indigenous (elucidated this term above) population and establish a DISPARATE regime to the current one.
6 - Maybe you're being deceived by propaganda which they're relying on in their Machiavellian politics? Their cause isn't reasonable and that's the issue with how I'm defining the legitimacy to it! Here's a nice source: http://www.falklands...nds-history.pdf They are purporting falsehoods to advance a rather immoral conquest and this lacks a legitimate, moral cause.
7 - Elaborate? I think this could be interesting on the psychology of nations.
8 - It's for the future and how industries/real estate/resources will expand to be inevitably profitable.
9 - No matter the immigration, they're expected to integrate into what's already there.
10 - Very true, very true, but as long as superpowers reinforce resolutions, it won't fail as the League of Nations did.

[Limey]

That's incorrect. Article 5 explicitly applies to overseas territories in North Africa and in the North Atlantic. However, NATO was founded with one clear goal - opposing Soviet Russian expansion in Western Europe. It is not a wholesale alliance, and it could never be extended to cover more than that. The only two countries which could really benefit from such a move are the US and UK, and the US doesn't want any part in defense of the Falklands, so it won't happen.

Where does Article 5 pertain to overseas territories? Was there a revision or appendix? From reading it before, I only remember this from the official document:

"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security ."


It does receive clarification in Article 6 on overseas territories, actually:

"For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

• on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France (2), on the territory of or on the Islands under the juris"diction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;"

http://en.wikipedia....ropic_of_Cancer

Falklands is below the Topic of Cancer which it says is the deciding point for intervention, I think?

Edited by Limey, 2013-03-27 @ 10:19.

[Elesium]

1 - You don't think original settlement is a valid premise of being ARTIFICIALLY indigenous?

Well if that is the case, it belongs to the French. The French made the first colony on the Falklands then England made one. Spain acquired Frances convoy and kept it whilst attacking and taking over the English colony. At that point all of the Falklands belongs to Spain. Spain allows the English to return to avoid full scale war.

Just read anything, it is not a cut and dry issue.

[Limey]

Well if that is the case, it belongs to the French. The French made the first colony on the Falklands then England made one. Spain acquired Frances convoy and kept it whilst attacking and taking over the English colony. At that point all of the Falklands belongs to Spain. Spain allows the English to return to avoid full scale war.

Just read anything, it is not a cut and dry issue.

As I explained, the colonial wars involved territories constantly changing ownership between European powers and the outcome of these interconnected conflicts, British with Falklands, decided who the true proprietor will be. This is my logic, simple, along with the fact they were the first to develop for a long while, established a settlement firmly at the location, creating a lineage there, and ceasing any interdependence to be fully autonomous.

Edited by Limey, 2013-03-27 @ 10:35.

[Elesium]

The point at which the English took control of the Falklands, we forced the Argentinians to leave. Hence their arguement that it belongs to them and we just took it by force.

[Limey]

The point at which the English took control of the Falklands, we forced the Argentinians to leave. Hence their arguement that it belongs to them and we just took it by force.

Did you not read the article I shared which has much evidence to support it? Check Point#3 at http://www.falklands...ds-history.pdf. Please don't try to educate me when not caring to fully research veracious sources shared DIRECTLY. Expressing sovereignty is also vital for claiming territory and frankly, Spain would have more credence over the Falklands opposed to Argentina.

Edited by Limey, 2013-03-27 @ 10:46.

[Nou]

Who cares, the last of the British empire and they are hanging on to it like its worth something. It is really pathetic.

Maybe you guys should focus on domestic issues like the rise of conservatism that has put you in the mess you are in now and not on a shitty little rock with a bunch of inbred people who worship a monarchy with no power.

[Chiefboats]

Who the fuck cares about a piece of rock in the middle of nowhere claimed by a country nowhere near it. Find something worth having a discussion about, like WTF happened to the your Empire and how it feels to have a greasy grip on being a world power. We in the U.S. are getting that feeling so perhaps you can give us tips on how to deal with living with that.

[Appe96]

Who the fuck cares about a piece of rock in the middle of nowhere claimed by a country nowhere near it. Find something worth having a discussion about, like WTF happened to the your Empire and how it feels to have a greasy grip on being a world power. We in the U.S. are getting that feeling so perhaps you can give us tips on how to deal with living with that.

That's easy. Just bomb the living crap of a country in the middle east and you'll do fine!

Edited by Appe96, 2013-03-27 @ 11:50.

[StatusRed]

Who cares, the last of the British empire and they are hanging on to it like its worth something. It is really pathetic.

Maybe you guys should focus on domestic issues like the rise of conservatism that has put you in the mess you are in now and not on a shitty little rock with a bunch of inbred people who worship a monarchy with no power.

... Right.

I'd describe trying to "hang on to the British empire" as trying to maintain control of a place whose population do not want to be under our control. This is not the case with the Falkland Islands. The way I see it is that you're saying that it's pathetic that we're protecting our citizens. Well, okay; if you say so.

It's a pretty uneducated point of view to be honest.

[Limey]

Who the fuck cares about a piece of rock in the middle of nowhere claimed by a country nowhere near it. Find something worth having a discussion about, like WTF happened to the your Empire and how it feels to have a greasy grip on being a world power. We in the U.S. are getting that feeling so perhaps you can give us tips on how to deal with living with that.

Would the USA like to lose Alaska, land of the trees and bears, to Russia since they originally owned it? It's the fact another nation would disrespect our nation, impede a current sovereignty belonging to us, and be ASSAULTED physically with an invasion. Is that fine? No, it's not in principle and neither is submission.

Edited by Limey, 2013-03-27 @ 12:21.

[Sickofguessing]

Why are you brits so defensive over the Falklands?everytime someone throws a comment regarding it we get someone sperging over it.

Because British men have died in defending the land and the people. Just like Americans would be antsy if we mocked you over how you feel about Hawaiian Islands/Pearl Harbor (or insert another similar example). Everyone gets emotional over these sorts of things.

Edited by Sickofguessing, 2013-03-27 @ 12:38.

[Nou]

Would the USA like to lose Alaska, land of the trees and bears, to Russia since they originally owned it? It's the fact another nation would disrespect our nation, impede a current sovereignty belonging to us, and be ASSAULTED physically with an invasion. Is that fine? No, it's not in principle and neither is submission.

That is an entirely unequivocal statement. Alaska was purchased from the Russians and the paperwork exists to show that. The Falklands have had claim laid to it by many different nations. As far as anyone is concerned its still up for grabs.

[ZZEZ]

Because British men have died in defending the land and the people. Just like Americans would be antsy if we mocked you over how you feel about Hawaiian Islands/Pearl Harbor (or insert another similar example). Everyone gets emotional over these sorts of things.

This is the internet, grow a thicker skin.