Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Why the UK argument in the Falklands is flawed Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    So a hypothetical question here.


    So lets say in the next 100years due to the decline in western civilization brought on by growing trade between the BRICS and the Arab world which refuses to trade with USA and its poodles (the UK etc) due to them nuking Iran the massive immigration of Caspians years before, their descendants (British people who have never been to Caspiar) decide enough is enough and take advantage of the flourishing economy in Caspiar and their dual -passport opportunity.

    So these British Caspians move back to Caspiar and a few years later there are more British living in Caspiar than actual Caspian natives.

    Would it be fair if these Caspians decided to vote for British rule over the island?


    I wouldn't think it.



    So why is it ok for the UK to say that a plantation in Las Malvinas is enough to keep the islands British?

    Now I know I sound anti-British here, I really am not. I just struggle to understand who having a population of British decent on the islands is enough to be British.

    If I and a bunch of friends went to a pacific island populated by one family, are we allowed to claim that island as British because the over whelming majority want it to be?

    You could say for Argentina that their presence in that country is not enough to allow them to rule it when it was originally a land dominated by Los tonocotés. But that opens a whole new can of worms and disputes the legitimacy of even the USA not to mention several other nations across the world.

    It just doesn't make sense for the claim to hold any respectable meaning really.

    Is there even that much oil there?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    It's not a plantation though. Argentina never owned it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Many countries have claim to the Falklands, Argentina is not one of them however. The countries who actually have a claim for it, dont get involved. Except ofc us.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Argentina never existed when the Falklands were appropriated so they have literally no claim to the islands.
    Plus it is a destitute hellhole that is headed towards yet another default.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bestofyou)
    So lets say in the next 100years due to the decline in western civilization brought on by growing trade between the BRICS and the Arab world which refuses to trade with USA and its poodles (the UK etc) due to them nuking Iran the massive immigration of Caspians years before, their descendants (British people who have never been to Caspiar) decide enough is enough and take advantage of the flourishing economy in Caspiar and their dual -passport opportunity.

    So these British Caspians move back to Caspiar and a few years later there are more British living in Caspiar than actual Caspian natives.

    Would it be fair if these Caspians decided to vote for British rule over the island?

    I wouldn't think it.

    So why is it ok for the UK to say that a plantation in Las Malvinas is enough to keep the islands British?

    Now I know I sound anti-British here, I really am not. I just struggle to understand who having a population of British decent on the islands is enough to be British.

    If I and a bunch of friends went to a pacific island populated by one family, are we allowed to claim that island as British because the over whelming majority want it to be?

    You could say for Argentina that their presence in that country is not enough to allow them to rule it when it was originally a land dominated by Los tonocotés. But that opens a whole new can of worms and disputes the legitimacy of even the USA not to mention several other nations across the world.

    It just doesn't make sense for the claim to hold any respectable meaning really.

    Is there even that much oil there?
    I didn't really understand your post.. It just computed in my brain as incoherent rambling tbh.. sorry.

    The Falklands were uninhabited before being claimed by Britain. Our settlers there have more of a right to that land than the Spanish settlers have to Argentina.
    Argentina wasn't even a state when we claimed the Falklands and there's never really been any Argentinians that have settled there. The only argument they have is that it is geographically close which means absolutely jack ****. To hand over the islands to Argentina would be a gross and shameful betrayal of its people. I'd probably relinquish my citizenship if that happened.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AJ_Moose)
    I didn't really understand your post.. It just computed in my brain as incoherent rambling tbh.. sorry.

    The Falklands were uninhabited before being claimed by Britain. Our settlers there have more of a right to that land than the Spanish settlers have to Argentina.
    Argentina wasn't even a state when we claimed the Falklands and there's never really been any Argentinians that have settled there. The only argument they have is that it is geographically close which means absolutely jack ****. To hand over the islands to Argentina would be a gross and shameful betrayal of its people. I'd probably relinquish my citizenship if that happened.
    well thanks for summing that up.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Victori spolia
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Argentina has no valid claim on it. If they say "it's closer to us!" well that has no basis in international law and they're dopey for believing that.

    Let them devise a claim and I'm sure Cameron or any future PM (Miliband?) will consider it.

    It also makes me laugh when French or Americans criticise us for possessing the Falklands. OK, so can Barbados claim Guadeloupe since it's closer to them than France? Can Haiti and the Dominican Republic claim Puerto Rico? it's closer to them you know!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AJ_Moose)
    I didn't really understand your post.. It just computed in my brain as incoherent rambling tbh.. sorry.
    That sums it up nicely
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The spainards who settled on the falklands (After they had been given a small village on it by the french) way after they were discovered (This is the basis of the argetinas claim,it was discovered by numerous people but named by the british) then left at the same time brits settled a different part of the falklands and continued habitance so litterally spain left it and britian settled on a new island.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    the fact its never been argentine kind of helps our cause...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bestofyou)
    So a hypothetical question here.


    So lets say in the next 100years due to the decline in western civilization brought on by growing trade between the BRICS and the Arab world which refuses to trade with USA and its poodles (the UK etc) due to them nuking Iran the massive immigration of Caspians years before, their descendants (British people who have never been to Caspiar) decide enough is enough and take advantage of the flourishing economy in Caspiar and their dual -passport opportunity.

    So these British Caspians move back to Caspiar and a few years later there are more British living in Caspiar than actual Caspian natives.

    Would it be fair if these Caspians decided to vote for British rule over the island?


    I wouldn't think it.



    So why is it ok for the UK to say that a plantation in Las Malvinas is enough to keep the islands British?

    Now I know I sound anti-British here, I really am not. I just struggle to understand who having a population of British decent on the islands is enough to be British.

    If I and a bunch of friends went to a pacific island populated by one family, are we allowed to claim that island as British because the over whelming majority want it to be?

    You could say for Argentina that their presence in that country is not enough to allow them to rule it when it was originally a land dominated by Los tonocotés. But that opens a whole new can of worms and disputes the legitimacy of even the USA not to mention several other nations across the world.

    It just doesn't make sense for the claim to hold any respectable meaning really.

    Is there even that much oil there?
    Exactly, your last point basically counters your first point. Read your 3rd last paragraph and there is your reason. The indigenous people of the Falkland (they have lived their for several generations - they are indigenous) want to be British, so let them be. If you were going down that road, i would just say the Argies should give back the country to the original people who lived there, since pretty much all Argies are descended from immigrants from Spain etc. So your argument is just stupid

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    We are just defending the right of the people who live there , it's a 'British overseas territory ' . They have there own government , are self sufficient (apart from defence) , basically the oil That is found there will not contribute much too the UK, most of it will be distribute among the falkland islanders , who will be very rich.

    I think they know their better off being 'British' although I wouldn't class them as that . We are a softer touch than the Argies and they will become wealthy , wearers the Argentinas who are net importers of oil , are just being greedy , and thinking that just because it's the 21st century that suddenly all land is just going to be handed around to it's constituent neighbours just because it seems 'fair' . Well that's just totally unrealistic the British government will never 'hand over' 1000km of land that has been well fought over , where over 300 British soldiers gave their lives . Weather the people there declare they are British , Argentinian or bloody Mongolian , it will remain as it is ...... (don't forget about Antarctica , the falkland islands tenchinally would give claim to it)


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Well, clearly your argument is flawed.

    It was never Argentine and I'm not sure where you spun that from about the British going over there and just voting for British rule, it was British in the first place. As others have mentioned, the only argument Argentina have is it's closer to them which is a terribly poor argument, It's like saying oh America should have Greenland (not that they'd want it) because Denmark is further away.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    It was never an Argentine settlement - the nation of Argentina never existed when the Islands were first discovered and colonized. France had a small settlement on the Falklands prior to the British, but this was short-lived and the British were the only nation to establish a firmer territory. We won the islands fair-and-square a long time ago, and they have been ours for most of the islands' recorded history.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by darsen)
    Argentina has no valid claim on it. If they say "it's closer to us!" well that has no basis in international law and they're dopey for believing that.

    Let them devise a claim and I'm sure Cameron or any future PM (Miliband?) will consider it.

    It also makes me laugh when French or Americans criticise us for possessing the Falklands. OK, so can Barbados claim Guadeloupe since it's closer to them than France? Can Haiti and the Dominican Republic claim Puerto Rico? it's closer to them you know!
    France and America have never criticised us for re capturing it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Isn't it ironic that the Argentinians are always complaining about the Falklands and saying they're 'the last vestige of colonialism' etc, when pretty much every single person in Argentina is themselves a colonist? I mean for god's sake, Cristina Kirchner is German.

    If it weren't for colonialism Argentina wouldn't even exist, so why on earth do they act like they've been long-oppressed by the very concept of colonialism? I'm sure the natives of the Rio de la Plata would have something to say to the white Argentinians.

    The hypocrisy irks me.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Echofoursix)
    The hypocrisy irks me.

    I agree. They are irksome.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The biggest hypocrisy is that they condemn the UK for colonialism in the 17-18th centuries but want to colonise the Falklands in the 21st. They don't care one iota for the Falkland Islanders. It's all patriotism and the desire for oil.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Great point, OP.

    The people of the Islas Malvinas do not have the right to self-determination because they are a transplanted population. A referendum to continue the occupation really amounts to saying the islands belong to the British state because they currently are—an application of the is–ought fallacy.

    Argentina won independence from Spain in 1816 and thus acquired the islands as the successor state of the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata. When Britain recognized the independence of Argentina in 1825, they recognized the islands as part of Argentinian territory de jure.

    Then, in 1831, three US vessels were seized and the crews arrested for violating fishing restrictions. The US then sent a warship to the islands to destroy the settlement. British troops then seized the islands, which are within Argentina's continental shelf and about 8700 miles away from the British mainland, in 1833 and killed the islands' inhabitants and expelled the rest, before beginning a policy of colonising the islands with British settlers.

    The Venezuelan foreign ministry rejected the UK's referendum as a violation of UN resolutions and international law; the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, the Ibero-American Union of Nations, Mercosur, the Rio Group, and the Summit of South America and Arab Countries have all rejected the results of the referendum as well.

    It is in complete disregard of public opinion and UN law that the UK persists in its stance to possess the islands at any cost. The real purpose of British control of the islands is to bolster military presence in the region and to secure the last remnants of colonialism and imperialism.
 
 
 
Poll
Which Fantasy Franchise is the best?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.