Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Limey

Falkland Islands are British! Facts!

Recommended Posts

1 - Prior to European discovery, there were no inhabitants: evident with no ruins, settlement, and history. European conflict decided who owned the unoccupied island.

2 - Ownership isn't based on proximity, evinced with Europe as very divided, and any changes were due to territorial wars or independence (i.e. sector of Sweden becoming Finland).

3 - Argentina did not exist when the islands were discovered along with the fact no future Argentinians were on the island (1).

4 - The rightful citizens of the Falkland wish to be an overseas territory and only one individual thought otherwise, very extreme in result to any standards of democracy.

5 - Argentina are the state truly acting colonial with their disrespect of the current/historic inhabitants in ignoring their desires/allegiance.

6 - Argentina invaded Falklands without any due cause: they had no legal precedent but falsehoods based on fabricating history and forcing words as representation of the islanders' wishes.

7 - Argentina has a history of abusing human rights in their own nation and they would dare attack the modern Britain as repressive or forceful? Hypocrites, especially considering how impeccable our recent culture is in regards to universal suffrage and press freedom.

8 - British taxpayers have funded the infrastructure of the Falklands Islands in a way which Argentina could not and we've introduced stability to their political system.

9 - 90% of the population descend from the British and they're the fair majority without having repressed anyone.

10 - The UN requested a peaceful negotiation at all costs and Argentina rejected their ruling, insulting an organization existing for world peace.

 

With all of these considered, Britain is simply defending from an irrational, aggressive nation who were once a military dictatorship (at the time of the invasion) and their warmongering is pathetic.

Share this post


Link to post

I just have to say that the Falklands belong to the british, and until or If Argentina beats the british, it will stay that way.

 

Rest is pointless arguments, Remember that the it is the guy with the biggest stick that decides the truth !

Share this post


Link to post

I can already see this turning into a pointless thread of bickering.

 

Just because someone else in another thread displayed their ignorance doesn't mean we should make threads that start out with stating the obvious. Limey, it is simply letting those kind of people revel in their own ignorance and you going on having a nice day despite of them.

Share this post


Link to post

I just have to say that the Falklands belong to the british, and until or If Argentina beats the british, it will stay that way.

 

Rest is pointless arguments, Remember that the it is the guy with the biggest stick that decides the truth !

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

I can already see this turning into a pointless thread of bickering.

 

Just because someone else in another thread displayed their ignorance doesn't mean we should make threads that start out with stating the obvious. Limey, it is simply letting those kind of people revel in their own ignorance and you going on having a nice day despite of them.

Have more faith and be less cynical. I seriously think this is positive as dialogue and I'm not so arrogant to think I've already thought/said everything, believing new posters may add substantial content.

Edited by Limey

Share this post


Link to post

Your entire OP does not present any topics to discussion but merely state facts.

What issues does your OP raise for discussion?

Share this post


Link to post

Your entire OP does not present any topics to discussion but merely state facts.

What issues does your OP raise for discussion?

The topic of the Falklands itself is very broad and that'll follow from here. I personally enjoy more open-ended discussions as they're flexible and cover a lot, users adapting to whatever topic unfolds. How about stop expressing these thoughts which ironically don't contribute and begin such with a little food for thought? :smile: You know the topical guideline: Falkland Islands, which is fine in responses besides blatant disrespect or other questionable conduct.

Edited by Limey

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post

As long that no one beats the britts on the islands. They belong to the britts. If somone else takes them it's theirs. If everybody started to make claims on lands that used to belong to them, then we all would be living in a cave in Congo. End of story!

Share this post


Link to post

I can already see this turning into a pointless thread of bickering.

 

Just because someone else in another thread displayed their ignorance doesn't mean we should make threads that start out with stating the obvious. Limey, it is simply letting those kind of people revel in their own ignorance and you going on having a nice day despite of them.

 

I agree this thread is practically pointless and there probably isn't going to be much debate against The Falkland Islands being British.

 

 

1 - Prior to European discovery, there were no inhabitants: evident with no ruins, settlement, and history. European conflict decided who owned the unoccupied island.

2 - Ownership isn't based on proximity, evinced with Europe as very divided, and any changes were due to territorial wars or independence (i.e. sector of Sweden becoming Finland).

3 - Argentina did not exist when the islands were discovered along with the fact no future Argentinians were on the island (1).

4 - The rightful citizens of the Falkland wish to be an overseas territory and only one individual thought otherwise, very extreme in result to any standards of democracy.

5 - Argentina are the state truly acting colonial with their disrespect of the current/historic inhabitants in ignoring their desires/allegiance.

6 - Argentina invaded Falklands without any due cause: they had no legal precedent but falsehoods based on fabricating history and forcing words as representation of the islanders' wishes.

7 - Argentina has a history of abusing human rights in their own nation and they would dare attack the modern Britain as repressive or forceful? Hypocrites, especially considering how impeccable our recent culture is in regards to universal suffrage and press freedom.

8 - British taxpayers have funded the infrastructure of the Falklands Islands in a way which Argentina could not and we've introduced stability to their political system.

9 - 90% of the population descend from the British and they're the fair majority without having repressed anyone.

10 - The UN requested a peaceful negotiation at all costs and Argentina rejected their ruling, insulting an organization existing for world peace.

 

With all of these considered, Britain is simply defending from an irrational, aggressive nation who were once a military dictatorship (at the time of the invasion) and their warmongering is pathetic.

 

Addressing a few points:

 

3 - Maybe not, but their descendants and the settlers of Argentina did exist.

4 - 3 votes against actually (in the latest referendum), not 1.

9 - 90+% of the population ARE British, not just of British descent.

Share this post


Link to post

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

Share this post


Link to post

This thread is, as has already been stated, pointless and will descend into, for the most part if it has not already, useless bickering.

The OP states loose facts without opening a discussion, it is the text equivalent of walking into a crowded room shouting out the same and assuming a discussion will follow rather than being told to take their opinions elsewhere.

 

With regards to the matter of the Falkland Islands, there is very little to discuss to begin with due to the results of the recent referendum, the decision of a nation to ignore the right to self determination is opening a whole different can of worms.

 

If the referendum were to be challenged by force of arms, as Argentina has shown it will when it doesn't get it's way, the aggressor would likely be easily beaten back: defences consist of a bit more than a Company minus of Royal Marines now.

Regardless of claims that are based on who or who was not there x hundred years ago, the current population has stated unanimously that they are a British Overseas Territory and subsequently British citizens. The deployment of HM armed forces in the area is considerably different, and they are considerably better equipped than in 1982, compared to the Argentine forces. Thus the population want to be under British rule and Britain is more than capable of defending this decision on behalf of the islanders.

At the risk of using hyperbole: in the 21st century the Argentine claim and any military action to press it would be comparable to Japan deciding they wanted Hawaii from the United States.

Edited by ToadBall

Share this post


Link to post

If the referendum were to be challenged by force of arms, as Argentina has shown it will when it doesn't get it's way, the aggressor would likely be easily beaten back: defences consist of a bit more than a Company minus of Royal Marines now.

Regardless of claims that are based on who or who was not there x hundred years ago, the current population has stated unanimously that they are a British Overseas Territory and subsequently British citizens. The deployment of HM armed forces in the area is considerably different, and they are considerably better equipped than in 1982, compared to the Argentine forces. Thus the population want to be under British rule and Britain is more than capable of defending this decision on behalf of the islanders.

 

The current Argentinian Government is not stupid or crazy enough to actually go to war over the Falkland Islands so that isn't something that even needs to be worried about.

Share this post


Link to post

At the risk of using hyperbole: in the 21st century the Argentine claim and any military action to press it would be comparable to Japan deciding they wanted Hawaii from the United States.

 

Is that wrong ?

Share this post


Link to post

This thread is, as has already been stated, pointless and will descend into, for the most part if it has not already, useless bickering.

The OP states loose facts without opening a discussion, it is the text equivalent of walking into a crowded room shouting out the same and assuming a discussion will follow rather than being told to take their opinions elsewhere.

 

With regards to the matter of the Falkland Islands, there is very little to discuss to begin with due to the results of the recent referendum, the decision of a nation to ignore the right to self determination is opening a whole different can of worms.

 

If the referendum were to be challenged by force of arms, as Argentina has shown it will when it doesn't get it's way, the aggressor would likely be easily beaten back: defences consist of a bit more than a Company minus of Royal Marines now.

Regardless of claims that are based on who or who was not there x hundred years ago, the current population has stated unanimously that they are a British Overseas Territory and subsequently British citizens. The deployment of HM armed forces in the area is considerably different, and they are considerably better equipped than in 1982, compared to the Argentine forces. Thus the population want to be under British rule and Britain is more than capable of defending this decision on behalf of the islanders.

At the risk of using hyperbole: in the 21st century the Argentine claim and any military action to press it would be comparable to Japan deciding they wanted Hawaii from the United States.

Loose facts? These are confirmed details of notable 'arguments' and I'll happily provide citations if necessary as response to further inquiry. The facts are intended as the baseline for discussion and opinions, applications of these facts in our current instance, acting as the variable which the topic should embrace.

 

Why are people prone here to denounce original content as useless, pessimistically dismiss any progressive potential, and criticize the posters' intent? In my opinion, if anything reduces the quality of threads, it's these types of responses in a state of total hypocrisy as they insinuate a desire for constructive threads whilst rendering the topic into a meta-analysis of how useful the thread is without contributing anything but assailing remarks. At least I created an opportunity for a hot topic and I'm inserting pertinent details which establish avenues to replies (e.g. discussion of these facts, how they relate to the dispute in relevance, the implications). What's an appropriate initiator - an open-ended curiosity of a specific, limited in dissective viability, or perhaps a broad topic that's an issue of much scrutiny in a multitude of directions?

 

Stop judging where it's truly useless and begin contributing.

 

Now, in an effort to balance current positions, I will argue on behalf of the Argentinians:

 

I believe the Falkland Islands are a remnant of a colonial era and they should be decided by modern politics and boarders, not the outcome of archaic conflicts which were wrong in essence. Ownership should adapt to history and today's event is Argentina's existence, entailing them a privilege to claim sovereignty over a land which is closest to them instead of the United Kingdom or any other nation. It's not only a concern to national security, it's a reminder of a horrible era in which civilizations were repressed with perspectives on superiority, demonstrated with such commentary as: "We will defend it successfully and it is therefore our possession".

 

The fact is the land belongs to the new demarcation of South America's territories, abruptly invented to require the appropriate adjustment, and since Argentina is the closest locale, they're the nation deserving the land integrated. The United Kingdom is not a South American power and their position nearby is offensive as French Guiana, forcefully located in (or near) our territories whilst having neither historic ancestry to the area or connecting infrastructure.

Share this post


Link to post

Loose facts? These are confirmed details of notable 'arguments' and I'll happily provide citations if necessary as response to further inquiry. The facts are intended as the baseline for discussion and opinions, applications of these facts in our current instance, acting as the variable which the topic should embrace.

 

Why are people prone here to denounce original content as useless, pessimistically dismiss any progressive potential, and criticize the posters' intent? In my opinion, if anything reduces the quality of threads, it's these types of responses in a state of total hypocrisy as they insinuate a desire for constructive threads whilst rendering the topic into a meta-analysis of how useful the thread is without contributing anything but assailing remarks. At least I created an opportunity for a hot topic and I'm inserting pertinent details which establish avenues to replies (e.g. discussion of these facts, how they relate to the dispute in relevance, the implications). What's an appropriate initiator - an open-ended curiosity of a specific, limited in dissective viability, or perhaps a broad topic that's an issue of much scrutiny in a multitude of directions?

 

Stop judging where it's truly useless and begin contributing.

 

Well no, you did not just provide details/facts to set a Baseline. You provided a paradigm, that you enforce us to have if we want to discuss. But what if we do not have the same paradigm, which leads us to think that your whole baseline is rubbish.

 

So unless you realize that it is that your Facts is only true in your paradigm, you will continue to meet people that "Judge where it is truly useless"

 

Also quotes or citations are not facts, just more reliable and respected arguments than your own in most cases.

Share this post


Link to post

Well no, you did not just provide details/facts to set a Baseline. You provided a paradigm, that you enforce us to have if we want to discuss. But what if we do not have the same paradigm, which leads us to think that your whole baseline is rubbish.

 

So unless you realize that it is that your Facts is only true in your paradigm, you will continue to meet people that "Judge where it is truly useless"

 

Also quotes or citations are not facts, just more reliable and respected arguments than your own in most cases.

A collective of thoughts and facts are a paradigm, sure, but that doesn't change they're facts and opinions as said???? Incidentally, unless you're talking about perspectivism philosophically, quotes can include facts and citations are expected to verify opinions with factual connections in other articles (or in merely reaffirm the position at times. Facts are provable and I can substantiate beyond reasonable doubt:

 

1 - The population is as described.

2 - The origin is as described.

3 - Argentina existed as said.

4 - Argentina has a negative history in regards to human right violations.

 

Nevertheless, as these facts are restricted to evidence available, it's always possible to say "what if" with the hypothetical in mind or expect continuous proof as impossible expectations, hence a standard to deciding factuality until fresh evidence supersedes it.

Share this post


Link to post

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 Viking

Share this post


Link to post

Why was this thread made? Seriously?

 

For trollz and lulz it seems..

Share this post


Link to post

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

Edited by Golfed

Share this post


Link to post

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

 

british-flag-640.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

Shame NATO doesn't extend to overseas territories. :wacko: 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.

Share this post


Link to post

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

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...