Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by Yoshi525, Jan 21, 2012.
They're there...and have been for the last 200 years...continuously, and Argentina hasn't - to any opened minded person that's pretty difficult to ignore. The locals probably dance to the portrait of the Queen of England, and speak with crazy "English" accents, and down a few lagers every morning. To say they are Argentinians is absurd.
The Falklands, for right or wrong, will most likely, forever remain tied to Britain - in the same way Texas will remain American, even though it was stolen by those white devils back in 1835 - or do you think Mexico can just walk in and re-take their old colony? Well they can if they had the muscle and money - but in all seriousness, it won't happen, and the same can be said about the Falklands.
We're not giving back Santa Anna's leg neither!
Texas is a different animal than the Falklands. Mexico liberalized their immigration policy to Americans (oh the irony). They declared themselves independent of Mexico and forced it by defeating Santa Anna. I don't think annexation or statehood was the goal of the Republic of Texas. The rest of the South-west US could be called a naked land-grab, but Texas wasn't.
They kind of have already. Someone can draw up a line on a map wherever they want, over time, people are going to migrate anyway.
And now you see what happens when people keep comparing apples with oranges.
Also, the Malvinas are in the UN agenda for decolonization. So the UK can keep delaying things all they want, but they're gonna have to let go of them eventually. After all it's still a non self governing territory. The UK can play around with the definition of self determination all they want, but the UN rulings about it are very specific. I suspect that sooner rather than later, the UN rulings and the ever growing support of more and more nations to the argentine claim, when even the US, UK's natural ally, is saying they should negotiate, are going to make the UK go back to negotiations and face the music.
I like when people bring up the Texas Immigration rebellion like a bunch of people showed up and a week later they took over, when it is actually more stupid than that.
They will go "BLAM, It's a protectorate of the Crown now, Byatch!" and then some guy named Roger Thimblodom will become the President of the Royal Protectorate of the Falklands.
Meanwhile, Argentina will continue to be the perfect combination of Batshit Crazy and Ass Grumpy and will probable send some lame ass with a plane to try and plant a flag on a island they never owned.
It sounds so stupid.....because it is probably gonna be true.
That might be true, but if it ever reaches the UN security council, the UK can just veto any decision it doesn't like, and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
As for actual negotiations, they will go something like this -
Argentina - we want the islands please.
Britain - we want the islands also....bye.
And just like the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, they will go on forever with the stronger party sitting on it's arse and going nowhere. That's why I ask isn't there more important issues that Argentinians need to focus on, the economy, social issues, poverty, etc.
We focus in all those thing and in trying to have back the Malvinas. Dont worry pixote, we didnt sit there doing nothing while waiting they returned our islands.
Not O'merookah fo sho.
"Somos todos Americanos!"
"¡Todos Somos Americanos!"
hmm, i remember him saying it "somos todos", but i could be remembering it incorrectly.
point being, falklands are indeed a part of america.
my dad, a south-american, gets overly aggitated whenever people assume "america" is nothing but a synonym for "usa"
"I AM AMERICAN TOO!!!"
"oh, what state?"
"NO NO NO!!!!"
A Falkland Islanders opinion on the matter.
Everyone has their "100% facts" and "indesputable evidence" about subjects such as this. Including this guy. Everyone has a different perception.
I personally want the Falklands to remain as they are because I'm unashamedly Welsh/British and therefore bias. I also think the British claim is stronger and more realistic in this day and age.
I'm posting this for the benefit of people like Crni who perhaps know less about the situation and were asking "what do Falkland residents think?". Well the link above has this one guys opinion and I think it mirrors the general consensus amongst islanders.
I think most people are intelligent enough to take the "facts" some are posting in here with a pinch of salt anyway.
Edit: I'll just leave this here: http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml
Chapter one, page one of the UN Charter. The Purposes of the United Nations: 2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.
Because of this, the bulk of the Argentinian argument rests on attempting to dis-credit the islanders existence as "peoples" (in the UN sense of the definition). Without being able to show this, the rest of their arguments have less "punch".
(edited for friendliness)
I do wonder though, since much of the Argentinian claims are based on the Treaty of Tordesillas of 1494, will that mean that they are going to be demanding 75% of Brazil and all of North America next?
ah historic "claims" and the troubles they started?
How many times have people now gone completely crazy because of some rock in the ocean. More people died in some conflict then the numbers of people which lived on those rocks ...
And here we start with the inaccuracies (because I want to assume they're not plain lies) that I thought I've already stablished were so. Like it was not uninhabited, it was unoccupied when argentina claimed them, nd it was already populated by argentines, with a local argentine government and the argentine flag flying on the islands. The british took them by force from us and we protested this act even before any british colonists arrived to the islands.
To be honest, if this was written by an islander, it reinforces my suspicions that they don't know their own history and that they have been lied about it.
Yeah, just take one part of history, ignore everything that happened before that that might make it look like you're not right, and twist it around so it makes it look like you are.
I mean, didn't I explained this already several times? This guy ignores all that, so if you want to know what's wrong with the statement go back and read it, I'm kinda tired of posting the same things over and over. Seriously, this is stuff I've already explained a thousand times and it's really getting old.
Ok I quoted this just to prove how much this article is lying (or at least how strongly biased it is that borderlines blatantly lying). There was no ban to charter flights, nor plans of banning them. As a matter of fact, an answer to that rumor, argentina has proposed frequent flights between Argentina and the islands.
But sure, hang on to a rumor you created yourself and make it look like a fact that has already happened. Oh wait... isn't that called lying?
If you like bringing articles from "The Guardian" here's a couple of other ones from the same newspaper, just so people get different points of views and don't stick with just one. As well as realize that what I say (because i've said I'm not necessarily impartial) is not my own fabricated biased version of history, others in britain and over the world who have looked at it impartially agree with it as well.
Personally the reason of why I want the british to go are not historical. The fundaments of wich I base my claims might be, but not why I want them to go.
There is no justification for two british military bases in South America just to defend the wishes of 2000 islanders who weren't even british citizens before 1983 and for wich they have not done nothing for before the war. The only infrastructure, like the airport in Puerto Argentino, as well as warehouses and other facilities on the islands the islanders made use of were built by Argentina. Everything else, including fishing rights and such, the british gave to the islanders after the war to gain their support and justify their occupation.
So I have nothing against the islanders or british citizens, what I don't want is the british government and their armed forces 400km off my coast, here in South America, where they have no business being in the first place. I want the british government away from my country because frankly I feel threatened by them. They want to keep their presence there to control a strategic foothold on the continent, they want our resources, they want antartida, they want their claws on whatever they can get a hold of and that's why they won't leave.
I don't want a foreign government and their military who will only act in their own interests acting against the interests of the whole region right on my backyard.
The UK is a powerful nation willing to go to war if it's remotely profitable for them, they have been like that trough their entire history and they are no different today. Their military ships manoeuver constantly 200 miles from our coast, conducting drills, constantly reminding us of their presence.
So how do you want me to feel about that? Well I certainly don't appreciate it.
I think that's the idea.
Argentina does not attempts to discredit anything. The definition of "peoples" (in the UN sense of the definition) not applying to the islanders has been voted by a great majority in the UN already. So "being able to show" as you say, we need not. The UN itself does not recognize the islanders as a separate party, only the UK does, and that's why UN has already stablished that "bilateral" (again in a UN sense of legal definition) negotiations between the UK and Argentina must take place.
Also, done some research, and this Roger Edwards, the author of the article you linked and a member of this "legislative assembly", is not even an islander, he was born in Brinkwworth, 80km west of London. He's not even a civilian, but retired SAS, who "moved" to the islands in 1986.
This kind of things is why we say it is an "implanted" population, and that they are not "native" to the islands. If this is the kind of people that fight for the islander self determination there is no wonder why they're going to be pro british.
Most of the people who pulls the strings on the islands do not even live there, they're british businessmen who run their business on the islands from britain. Some of them even have islander "residence", but just from owning property there, they don't actually live there.
Also, from General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) "Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples."
Since Argentina has a territorial dispute over the territory that is locally considered an indivisible part of our nation any attempt for "self determination" would be incompatible with the mentioned Charter.
I was hoping this thread had passed away quietly...but someone brought it back to life.
Well, it was popej, and I have to answer otherwise it looks like I'm either granting him that I agree with what he says or that I have nothing to counter his arguments.
And yes, I am determined like that. It's a subject I have strong convictions about.
jup and thats what usually leads to useless wars and conflicts where people hate each other. I find it ridiculous. Just as how I did it back then in the Yugoslavian war. This silly thing called nationality. neighbors killing each other. But oh well. If people feel proud AND right. There is nothing you can do.
Still if you think argentina has any chance against Britain then you are living in a dream world. I am just being realistic here.