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

Whats the point of owning the Falklands anyways? It's not that vital and the war fought for it was pointless IMO.
Shame NATO doesn't extend to overseas territories.
Maybe an extension this way needs to be ratified.
Whats the point of owning the Falklands anyways? It's not that vital and the war fought for it was pointless IMO.
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: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 !
Edited by Limey, 2013-03-27 @ 08:59.
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.
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!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.
1 - You don't think original settlement is a valid premise of being ARTIFICIALLY indigenous?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.
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: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.
Edited by Limey, 2013-03-27 @ 10:19.
1 - You don't think original settlement is a valid premise of being ARTIFICIALLY indigenous?
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.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.
Edited by Limey, 2013-03-27 @ 10:35.
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.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.
Edited by Limey, 2013-03-27 @ 10:46.
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.
Edited by Appe96, 2013-03-27 @ 11:50.
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.
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.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.
Edited by Limey, 2013-03-27 @ 12:21.
Why are you brits so defensive over the Falklands?everytime someone throws a comment regarding it we get someone sperging over it.
Edited by Sickofguessing, 2013-03-27 @ 12:38.
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.
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.
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
Community Forum Software by IP.Board
Licensed to: UnitedOperations LLC - ©2017