[Snagprophet]

(Original post by cricketman)
Just give them bak the falklands they are near to it than the Uk so they should have it.

How on Earth does someone have anything 'back' if they never owned them in the first place?

[James82]

(Original post by cricketman)
Just give them bak the falklands they are near to it than the Uk so they should have it.

Can we have The Faroes back then? They are nearer to the UK than Denmark.

[qwerty4444]

..

[Alpharius]

We should react in exactly the same way we did the last time. Do nothing until they try to forcibly take it.

Then intervein.

Then again, I don't think their stupid enough to take us on after we embarrased them last time.

[TRS-T]

Why don't we just move the British people who live there back to Britain, and give the islands to Argentina?

It is a bit random.

Imagine if Brazil was like, we own the Isle of Man.

You'd be like WTF you on about Brazil.

[James82]

(Original post by qwerty4444)
No, if people (non-British) citizens in habited the island before Britain made a claim to the island and then in modern times they were unanimously in favour of remaining part of Britain, this would certainly give Britain's claim a greater legitimacy, yes. It makes a difference as it sets a example, by which a country can claim absolutely any piece of land in the world by transferring a section of it's citizen's there.

So, only countries inhabited by non-British people can determine to become part of Britain?

(Original post by qwerty4444)
So, only You seemingly suggest in your post that just because Britain hasn't settled some of it's islands, it does not mean they are not rightfully Britain's. However, in your previous point you suggest the Falkland's are rightfully Britain's because 'nobody else successfully settled them and we did'.

It is up to Britain to defend her borders and stop people settling her lands. If we let a group of people come and settle on a piece of uninhabited land and did nothing for 150 years to remove them, then I would argue for their right to self-determination as strongly as I argue for the Falklander's rights.

(Original post by qwerty4444)
No, because if the islands were uninhabited before, then another country could not simply place their citizens on the island, so as abiding by the principle of 'self determination' they could have a legitimate claim. However, if a country made a claim to a populated group of islands and the population voted to uphold that claim, then that would be legitimate under the principle of 'self determination'.

So, no country or group of people could ever expand from the land they inhabited, meaning that by right we should all be roaming the plains of Africa, because as soon as we left those plains we lost our right to self determination?

[qwerty4444]

(Original post by James82)
So, only countries inhabited by non-British people can determine to become part of Britain?




It is up to Britain to defend her borders and stop people settling her lands. If we let a group of people come and settle on a piece of uninhabited land and did nothing for 150 years to remove them, then I would argue for their right to self-determination as strongly as I argue for the Falklander's rights.




So, no country or group of people could ever expand from the land they inhabited, meaning that by right we should all be roaming the plains of Africa, because as soon as we left those plains we lost our right to self determination?

Are you serious I'm talking about modern times, with organised nations. If you haven't noticed we are not all one country, British people colonised North America when it was part of the British empire, they then created the United States of America; if the people of the Falkland's had done the same there would not be a dispute.

[Clip]

Who else thinks we should bomb the coast of Argentina?

[James82]

(Original post by qwerty4444)
Are you serious I'm talking about modern times, with organised nations. If you haven't noticed we are not all one country, British people colonised North America when it was part of the British empire, they then created the United States of America; if the people of the Falkland's had done the same there would not be a dispute.

Oh right, so where is this arbitrary cut off of 'modern times' where these 'holier than thou' rules apply? Let me guess, about 200 years ago, just before we settled the Falklands and just after America declared independence? Don't forget most people in the US never wanted independence from Britain, they just wanted representation, what happened to their right of self-determination? Oh that's ok though because it conveniently occurs just before your cut off for 'modern times'.

[James82]

(Original post by Clip)
Who else thinks we should bomb the coast of Argentina?

No, just a rocket up Cristina's backside should do the trick.

[CurtainrailMan]

Lets face it - historically and geographically neither side has any more of a claim to the islands than the other.

Oh, and if oil is discovered off the Falklands, then apparently the islands themselves would not be big enough for the on-shore facilities.

So the "Falklands" oil industry would require a bigger nearby landmass - and that would be... Argentina.

So what's the problem for Argentina? I think that Las Malvinas is just one of those unimportant populist issues that politicians obsess over and grabs headlines - every country has them.

[Good bloke]

(Original post by qwerty4444)
Are you unaware that in 1982 Argentina was ruled by a military dictatorship which murdered many of it's own citizens, it is now ruled by a liberal democracy...

Liberal democracy? I don't think so. Liberal democracies don't bang the drum and demand sovereignty of other countries' possessions without any thought for the rights to self-determination of the inhabitants of those possessions.

[James82]

(Original post by CurtainrailMan)
Lets face it - historically and geographically neither side has any more of a claim to the islands than the other.

Oh, and if oil is discovered off the Falklands, then apparently the islands themselves would not be big enough for the on-shore facilities.

So the "Falklands" oil industry would require a bigger nearby landmass - and that would be... Argentina.

So what's the problem for Argentina? I think that Las Malvinas is just one of those unimportant populist issues that politicians obsess over and grabs headlines - every country has them.

What do you mean they're not big enough? They are plenty big enough.

[Good bloke]

(Original post by CurtainrailMan)
Oh, and if oil is discovered off the Falklands, then apparently the islands themselves would not be big enough for the on-shore facilities.

That is a preposterous statement. The islands are over half the size of Wales. Just how large are the facilities you envisage might be needed?

[qwerty4444]

(Original post by Good bloke)
Liberal democracy? I don't think so. Liberal democracies don't bang the drum and demand sovereignty of other countries' possessions without any thought for the rights to self-determination of the inhabitants of those possessions.

I don't see what's undemocratic about diplomatically requesting sovereignty over a piece of land you, as well as the majority of your peoples see as yours. Are you really naive enough to think that the world or Argentina hasn't changed since 1982?

[qwerty4444]

(Original post by James82)
Oh right, so where is this arbitrary cut off of 'modern times' where these 'holier than thou' rules apply? Let me guess, about 200 years ago, just before we settled the Falklands and just after America declared independence? Don't forget most people in the US never wanted independence from Britain, they just wanted representation, what happened to their right of self-determination? Oh that's ok though because it conveniently occurs just before your cut off for 'modern times'.

The UN maintains a list of 16 “Non-Self-Governing Territories” which it defines as “non-decolonised”. The Falkland Islands are among 10 former British colonies on the list, which the UN began compiling in 1946 as a kind of roll-call of shame for the remaining colonial powers. Post World War Two perhaps?

[Good bloke]

(Original post by qwerty4444)
Are you really naive enough to think that the world or Argentina hasn't changed since 1982?

Are you naive enough to think the right to self-determination of the islanders should be ignored? Or do you think they would vote in favour of annexation by Argentina?

[Clip]

I don't yet see any compelling argument for not bombing the coast of Argentina.

[qwerty4444]

..

[Good bloke]

(Original post by qwerty4444)
Or the one advocating decolonisation by nations.

Aren't you missing the point that the Falklands becoming Argentinian would not fulfil the aim of de-colonisation? Argentina is a country populated overwhelmingly by European colonists, who invaded the South American mainland and forcibly took it from its indigenous peoples. The colonists then rebelled against their European masters, but they were still invading colonists. Britain, by contrast, took the islands from nobody. If anything, giving the islands to Argentina would reinforce such colonisation.