[anarchism101]

(Original post by steve2005)
You think proximity is a legitimate reason to claim ownership of land. If this is the case why is the Island of ireland not British. Why does Japan not belong to China.

Why does Canada not belong to the USA?

Why does the USA not belong to China?

Why does my neighbours house not belong to me?

Proximity is no reason to claim ownership.

I was talking about the oil, not the land.

[bishbash72]

(Original post by I do)
Who needs a military power close to its territory? specially country which whom they had a war with! Imagine Argentina makes an military base somewhere on the Isles of Scilly

The military base is only there because Argentina invaded the Falkland islands. You make it sound as if the Falkland Islands are a threat to Argentina, rather than the other way round, which is the obvious truth.

[KimKallstrom]

(Original post by hughcapet)
You'd s**g that?



I'd be careful if I were you. She looks like one of those venomous spiders that mates with the male of the species and then devours him before dawn

Would rather do her than Merkel!

[bishbash72]

(Original post by I do)
does squatting make house yours?

If the house is a bare island in the middle of the ocean where nobody has ever lived before you, then yes.

[Psyk]

(Original post by I do)
I think there is a huge difference between Agentina-Spain and UK-Falklands Case!
At least Argentina is an independent state which is even recognised by Spain and Falklands is under Brits! I will not continue this point.

But the Falklands are willingly a British territory. That's what they want. Would Argentina drop their claim if the Falklands were independent? I doubt it somehow.

(Original post by I do)
Self-Determination could not be 'fair' outcome but if it will be taken as a best option is an reality! However, When the country has de facto and de jure control over island and that the majority is already British, who needs the formal 'referendum'?
If you let Argentitians to move there than self-determination will have the legitimacy!

So you think it's ok to kick people out of their homes so that "self-determination" will go the way you want it?

(Original post by I do)
Ok, the classical colonizing did not happen as people were not slaughtered and enslaved. However, the Brits were been sent there to legitimate its power over territory! the same thing happened by Russia in 20th century in Kaliningrad.
colonizing? it was an reality for that centuries, it had pros and cons but I think
since than things changed dramatically and what was taken for by military force needs to be returned back in order a historical justice to be restored.

So then why has Argentina not been returned to the natives? Argentina was taken by military force and then declared independent by the mostly Spanish settlers there. How is that historical justice for all the natives that were killed?

[I do]

(Original post by Callum828)
The military base is only there because Argentina invaded the Falkland islands. You make it sound as if the Falkland Islands are a threat to Argentina, rather than the other way round, which is the obvious truth.

I did not wanted to make this point but I think it really worth to look the map where is
Falklands and where is UK! And because you had a stong navy does not mean
you have the right to 'legitize' anything you want! The same what US were doing few years ago.
Only reason the UK has that island is that it had and still has better military forces than Argentina!

[Psyk]

(Original post by I do)
I did not wanted to make this point but I think it really worth to look the map where is
Falklands and where is UK! And because you had a stong navy does not mean
you have the right to 'legitize' anything you want! The same what US were doing few years ago.
Only reason the UK has that island is that it had and still has better military forces than Argentina!

So what would you think if the Falklands became independent? Then the closest country to the Falklands would be the Falklands.

What's your opinion on French Guiana? Or the Canary Islands? Or Ceuta and Melilla? Or Hawaii and Alaska? Should they belong to different countries because of geographical proximity? According to your logic the Faroe Islands should be British.

[ThatPerson]

Tell Argentina to F*** off. They only want the Falkland's for the oil, and the people of the Falkland's themselves want to be British.

Argentina are accusing us of being colonialist, but that's exactly what they are being over the Falklands. They have no right or claim to the Falklands.

[I do]

(Original post by Psyk)
So what would you think if the Falklands became independent? Then the closest country to the Falklands would be the Falklands.

What's your opinion on French Guiana? Or the Canary Islands? Or Ceuta and Melilla? Or Hawaii and Alaska? Should they belong to different countries because of geographical proximity? According to your logic the Faroe Islands should be British.

I think it is British Arguement 'lets ask locals what they want?' OK! makes sense! why? same things happenes on oversea territories France has, people simply dontgive a F--k to independence as far as they enjoy economically by being French Citizens. Benefits, Free Movement, Protection, French Salaries and etc. 'Money' - The point which we completely missed and which will probably determins almost everything in this world, particularly in western world and not only.
Who needs Argentina there? not locals, not UK so as simple as that. They can say simply, Argentinians we are happy, find something else to play with! but does this makes Britain right?

Independence? well, I even doubte if they have the right for self-determination? as Self determination means:

the right of an ethnic, linguistic, or religious group to redefine existing national borders to achieve a separate national sovereignty or simply to achieve a greater degree of autonomy and linguistic or religious identity within a sovereign state

I think Argentina have to push the argument that Falklands is an occupied territory and then work at least british to move away!

[hughcapet]

(Original post by FrigidSymphony)
If by "Tomahawk cruise missile" you mean my penis, I'll be happy to take one for the team.

Very well, the assignment is yours. Do not fail your mission

[patrickinator]

(Original post by I do)
I think it is British Arguement 'lets ask locals what they want?' OK! makes sense! why? same things happenes on oversea territories France has, people simply dontgive a F--k to independence as far as they enjoy economically by being French Citizens. Benefits, Free Movement, Protection, French Salaries and etc. 'Money' - The point which we completely missed and which will probably determins almost everything in this world, particularly in western world and not only.
Who needs Argentina there? not locals, not UK so as simple as that. They can say simply, Argentinians we are happy, find something else to play with! but does this makes Britain right?

Independence? well, I even doubte if they have the right for self-determination? as Self determination means:

I think Argentina have to push the argument that Falklands is an occupied territory and then work at least british to move away!

Read this: http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16189885

Mate, you sound like some brainwashed Argentinian youth! It is not about the money, the entire economy of the Falklands approximately £110 million is based around sheep farming and tourism so they don't need the support of the UK except for defence. Hmmm I wonder why?

[doggyfizzel]

Just ignore them. They have no more claim to the Falkland's than us and numerous other countries. There are people living there and they want to remain British. Militarily Argentina can't do anything the combination of Dauntless and the Eurofighters means we control the air, and the Trafalgar sub means they won't send in any ships. Let them rant.

[bishbash72]

(Original post by I do)
I did not wanted to make this point but I think it really worth to look the map where is
Falklands and where is UK! And because you had a stong navy does not mean
you have the right to 'legitize' anything you want! The same what US were doing few years ago.
Only reason the UK has that island is that it had and still has better military forces than Argentina!

So what you mean is that geographic proximity overrides the right of sovereignty?

Does that mean that Britain has the right to the Faroe Islands? I mean sure they want to be part of Denmark, but since when do people matter in discussions of sovereignty?

[Psyk]

(Original post by I do)
I think it is British Arguement 'lets ask locals what they want?' OK! makes sense! why? same things happenes on oversea territories France has, people simply dontgive a F--k to independence as far as they enjoy economically by being French Citizens. Benefits, Free Movement, Protection, French Salaries and etc. 'Money' - The point which we completely missed and which will probably determins almost everything in this world, particularly in western world and not only.
Who needs Argentina there? not locals, not UK so as simple as that. They can say simply, Argentinians we are happy, find something else to play with! but does this makes Britain right?

Well, yes it does. The British claim is that the local population want it to remain British.

(Original post by I do)
Independence? well, I even doubte if they have the right for self-determination? as Self determination means:

They have their own government which is almost completely autonomous. Typically the British government only has to step in to defend them from Argentina. They don't have a right to independence enshrined in British law, but if you look at all the other territories that Britain gave independence to during the 60s and later, I don't see why Britain would have a problem with them being independent if that's what they wanted.

(Original post by I do)
I think Argentina have to push the argument that Falklands is an occupied territory and then work at least british to move away!

What makes it an occupied territory? If the Argentinians took over against the will of the people living there, then wouldn't that make it an occupied territory?

[funsongfactory]

The people of the Falklands Islands are British and want to remain British, therefore Britain should defend them and keep them British.

[kingsholmmad]

(Original post by Otkem)
Give them back their bloody islands. I am fed up of having my taxes go on supporting some useless bits of rock that no more belong to Antarticta than they do to England. If the 2000 Falklanders want to remain British, then let them move to England.

If it's your taxes you're worried about, then get your finger out and start some sort of movement to get us out of Afghanistan which is much less justified and much more expensive.

(Original post by goussberry)
Let them go already, are they really worth the fuss? There were like 2000 inhabitants in the 1980s; the Falklands cost 3bill and it would have cost less to just give each person 1mill to up and leave. I believe there are even fewer inhabitants now so what's the point in wasting money on them again? They want independence, let them have it and see how they like that

They don't want independence, they want to remain British. As long as that remains the case, I say we have a moral duty to protect them.

(Original post by Sharri5)
You should give them the Faulklands. That's who they belong to anyway. Typical british arrogance to take things that don't belong to you. kneel down and do what is right.

The Falklands do not belong to Argentina, they are British, have been British for longer than Argentina has existed and have repeatedly stated that they wish to remain British. It is, therefore, down to us to "do what is right" and protect their right to make that decision.

(Original post by I do)

a century ago you would say India was British!

I think historical justice needs to be restored!

A century ago India was British but things move on, times change. India is not British now but the Falklands are. At the basic level, it's that simple.

(Original post by I do)
I am reading these posts and realising there is colonizer's blood in this nation!

Colonizing and 'putting' British people on the island does not make the island British.

No, the international recognition of the fact that they are British makes them British.

We don't need (or want) to do anything right now. Wait until after the Argentine election (basically the reason for all this sabre-rattling) and this will probably calm down again and, unless their S.American neighbours give it any momentum, disappear off the radar.

[I do]

(Original post by patrickinator)
Read this: http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16189885

Mate, you sound like some brainwashed Argentinian youth! It is not about the money, the entire economy of the Falklands approximately £110 million is based around sheep farming and tourism so they don't need the support of the UK except for defence. Hmmm I wonder why?

Well, the issue is exactly about money! and your link has made it clear!
British Government wants British companies to drill and those money will get to UK Budget and indirectly to you. That is the function of government to give opportunities
to their citizens and make them satisfied and happy in order to be re-elected!
For this and other reason UK did aggressive foreign policy and goes abroad to bring money in.

Do u think those local Brits want to lose those 110 Millions? as future with Argentina wound be as 'lovely' as it is now!

(Original post by Psyk)
Well, yes it does. The British claim is that the local population want it to remain British.

They have their own government which is almost completely autonomous. Typically the British government only has to step in to defend them from Argentina. They don't have a right to independence enshrined in British law, but if you look at all the other territories that Britain gave independence to during the 60s and later, I don't see why Britain would have a problem with them being independent if that's what they wanted.


What makes it an occupied territory? If the Argentinians took over against the will of the people living there, then wouldn't that make it an occupied territory?

I think we have to make it clear! Argentina has to argue from the historical perspective as that island while there was chaos was occupied by Brits which has 'Britisized' the island. It always was like this that time - all strong powers trying to get from weak as much as possible. As there were no aborigens in Falklands and no push from locals UK decided to eat this tasty piece of land. The power assymentry is an answer to many questions.

Why do u think the EU in Lisbon emphasized that Falkland belongs to UK? UK knew that this issue will be raised and made it 'legitimate' in advance.

Depends from Argentina, it is subjective point to some extent, maybe Argentinians see this process as getting back what belongs to them.

Faroe Island?
why does UK need them? as far as UK has enough fish and fishers and there is no
oil in Faroe Island who cares about them?

[Cheese_Monster]

Nuke them. NUKE THEM NOW.

But first I think we should recognise this state of so called 'Argentinia' and then we should assess the threat posed from a similarly spelt country in South America.

[steve2005]

(Original post by I do)
I did not wanted to make this point but I think it really worth to look the map where is
Falklands and where is UK! And because you had a stong navy does not mean
you have the right to 'legitize' anything you want! The same what US were doing few years ago.
Only reason the UK has that island is that it had and still has better military forces than Argentina!

The inhabitants are mostly descended from people that arrived in the Falklands before Argentina was established. They are there because that is their home.

We arrived before Argentina existed. We are still there because we successfully resisted the invasion by Argentina.

[Raducan]

Ignore them.

It's posturing and she'd never dare actually invade considering that most of Argentina's warships/planes are ones that we stopped using around forty years ago...