The Student Room Group

UN court ruled falkland islands belong to the Argies

Scroll to see replies

I love how some of you lot pretend to be all about what the people want, with your transparent and sanctimonious BS, but you never fail to betray your true feelings. There is pretty much nobody who proposes giving back the Falklands to Argentina - even though everyone on the island would hate that and it's never been Argentinian - who isn't actually motivated by hatred towards Britain. Obviously I include people like Corbyn in that. On this basis, you can all go suck it and cry more when the will of the people is fulfilled and the island continue to have nothing to do with Argentina :wink:
Original post by The_Opinion
You are forgetting how much of a traitor Corbyn is, he has no loyalty to this country.


I wouldn't necessarily put it past the Falklands, whether it be as violently, as in likely through more diplomatic means, do want Anguilla did

Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 62
Avatar for 41b
41b
5
It's always funny hearing leftists, feminists and other supposed egalitarians defend the UK's possession of the Falklands. The only reason the UK cares is because massive oil reserves lie nearby, and considering the UK already had the North Sea oil windfall, leftists should, for equality's sake, be happy to see the Falklands given to Argentina?

More seriously, finder's keepers. And if not, winners keepers. So unless Argentina wants to start another war... stfu
Original post by 41b
It's always funny hearing leftists, feminists and other supposed egalitarians defend the UK's possession of the Falklands. The only reason the UK cares is because massive oil reserves lie nearby, and considering the UK already had the North Sea oil windfall, leftists should, for equality's sake, be happy to see the Falklands given to Argentina?

More seriously, finder's keepers. And if not, winners keepers. So unless Argentina wants to start another war... stfu


Disagree. i think we'd defend them without the oil. Its not what motivated them to go and reclaim them.
Reply 64
Avatar for 41b
41b
5
Original post by Farm_Ecology
The proposed expansion includes the islands, it doesnt come up in the picture though.


Countries have the right to exploit economically areas that are within 200 miles of their coast or the continental shelf, whichever is closer (iirc, correct me if I'm wrong).

The dispute is not over the islands but the huge oil reserves that lie in Falkandic/British waters.
Original post by The_Opinion
You are forgetting how much of a traitor Corbyn is, he has no loyalty to this country.


Can someone explain to me why Corbyn is aupposed to be a traitor, as far as I can see it's because he prefers to negotiate with people we disagree with rather than blow them up. Why does this make him a traitor?
Original post by Drewski
It doesn't. The ruling clearly states the territorial waters of the Falklands are outside the parameters of their decision.


Original post by 41b
Countries have the right to exploit economically areas that are within 200 miles of their coast or the continental shelf, whichever is closer (iirc, correct me if I'm wrong).The dispute is not over the islands but the huge oil reserves that lie in Falkandic/British waters.


You're right, I think I misunderstood the article.

Original post by scrotgrot
Can someone explain to me why Corbyn is aupposed to be a traitor, as far as I can see it's because he prefers to negotiate with people we disagree with rather than blow them up. Why does this make him a traitor?

It's an attempt to silence opposition by using insane slurs on a persons character. Like when people call Farage a racist.
Reply 67
Avatar for 41b
41b
5
Original post by scrotgrot
Can someone explain to me why Corbyn is aupposed to be a traitor, as far as I can see it's because he prefers to negotiate with people we disagree with rather than blow them up. Why does this make him a traitor?


Britain is the Royal state. There are subjects of the Queen, not citizens of the state. Corbyn refused to sing the national anthem.

IMO if one doesn't and one is also a leftist, one should be stripped of British citizenship (or rather, subjecthood).
Reply 68
Avatar for 41b
41b
5
Original post by 999tigger
Disagree. i think we'd defend them without the oil. Its not what motivated them to go and reclaim them.


Britain in 1982 was a much more proud, nationalist and strong country. Perhaps in 1982 they cared about territorial integrity, their People etc but today if Argentina successfully attacked and was in the same relative position compared to Britain as it was in 1982, do you think a wimp like Cameron would defend it, if there was no oil?
Original post by scrotgrot
Can someone explain to me why Corbyn is aupposed to be a traitor, as far as I can see it's because he prefers to negotiate with people we disagree with rather than blow them up. Why does this make him a traitor?


In this particular situation its because he plans to negotiate a power sharing agreement that is not wanted by the residents - he'll actively work against their self determined wish to remain independent.

Completely aside from any other political view he may hold, he's essentially saying the views of the British people he could represent don't matter to him. It's pretty hard to spin that as a positive.
Original post by 41b
Britain in 1982 was a much more proud, nationalist and strong country. Perhaps in 1982 they cared about territorial integrity, their People etc but today if Argentina successfully attacked and was in the same relative position compared to Britain as it was in 1982, do you think a wimp like Cameron would defend it, if there was no oil?


Yes. That's why they maintain - at great cost - a defensive garrison that could repel anything that Argentina was capable of throwing at it.

Arguably, Britain in '82 was much weaker. Our forces were poor, we'd just retired our last proper aircraft carriers, we'd started looking (under the table and very unofficially) at how to get rid of them.
Original post by Drewski
In this particular situation its because he plans to negotiate a power sharing agreement that is not wanted by the residents - he'll actively work against their self determined wish to remain independent.

Completely aside from any other political view he may hold, he's essentially saying the views of the British people he could represent don't matter to him. It's pretty hard to spin that as a positive.


Yeah but it isn't traitorous. Cameron doesn't represent me that well. Off with his head!

Also states ignore self detemination all the time. I doubt if I held a vote of the citizens of bollington and we voted for independence, to secede from the UK and we made our own commune, erected barricades...."The Poeple's Republic of Bollington" I don't think that would go down well with the British state.

Falklanders wanting to remain as part of the UK is good enough reason for it to remain as far as I'm concerned but I doubt we would just give them away if it was the other way round.
(edited 8 years ago)
To be fair, the Falkland Islands are a lot closer to Argentina than the UK... In fact, the Falkland Islands are across an entire ocean from us, whereas mere miles from the Argentines. Any objective geographical reading would put the FI with Argentina, not the UK.

I am happy to see the arguments on the other side, though.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
Yeah but it isn't traitorous.


It could be argued it is.
"traitor - a person who betrays someone or something"

If Corbyn was to have his way could it be argued he was betraying the islanders? Very possibly.
Original post by Pupillageman20
To be fair, the Falkland Islands are a lot closer to Argentina than the UK... In fact, the Falkland Islands are across an entire ocean from us, whereas in view from the coast for the Argentines.

These are the last vestiges of colonialism, we have no reason to feel such an immense amount of attachment. The Latin Americans have been through enough (They are human beings too).


Try telling that to the Islanders

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Drewski
It could be argued it is.
"traitor - a person who betrays someone or something"

If Corbyn was to have his way could it be argued he was betraying the islanders? Very possibly.


"No top down reorganisation of the NHS" :eek:

Also you ignored the rest of my post. You can argue states fundamentally are hostile to the idea of self determination. I can't just claim and make my plot fo land my own intendant country without running into the force of the state I live under. The state has bigger sticks and more people to wield them than I do.

Again. I doubt the British state would respect the Falklanders if they said they wanted to be apart of Argentina and let them brake away. It;s more the current set up is a happy coincidence.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Jammy Duel
Try telling that to the Islanders

Posted from TSR Mobile


I do not feel strongly about this. I am happy to hear reasons for both sides. I just think some objectivity is required in this debate. A lot of the rhetoric is based on nationalism.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Pupillageman20
To be fair, the Falkland Islands are a lot closer to Argentina than the UK... In fact, the Falkland Islands are across an entire ocean from us, whereas in view from the coast for the Argentines.


No they're not. They're over 200 miles from the Argentine coast.

And proximity means nothing at all, it's entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

Original post by Pupillageman20
These are the last vestiges of colonialism, we have no reason to feel such an immense amount of attachment. The Latin Americans have been through enough (They are human beings too).


Yes, like a failed invasion...

If anything it's the Argentineans who have no right to any attachment seeing as their country only came into existence after the claiming of the Falklands.
Original post by Drewski
No they're not. They're over 200 miles from the Argentine coast.

And proximity means nothing at all, it's entirely irrelevant to this discussion.


My comment was figurative. And proximity is entirely relevant to territoriality.

I see your point, though.
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
"No top down reorganisation of the NHS" :eek:

Also you ignored the rest of my post. You can argue states fundamentally are hostile to the idea of self determination. I can't just claim and make my plot fo land my own intendant country without running into the force of the state I live under.

Again. I doubt the British state would respect the Falklanders if they said they wanted to be apart of Argentina and let them brake away. It;s more the current set up is a happy coincidence.


The rest wasn't relevant to the point. You said it's not traitorous, I gave a definition under which it could be described as exactly that.

But the notion of going against the state is irrelevant in this case as the state against whom we're arguing didn't exist when the islands were claimed and inhabited.

If the islanders ever decided that the only thing I could envisage changing is that we'd withdraw defence and leave them to their own devices; there would be no arrangement to hand them over to someone else.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you