Sean Penn is an idiot

[Coito ergo sum]

In practical terms, as I understand it, there would have been no way to hang on to Hong Komg once the New Territories had gone. Just wouldn't be viable.

You are right of course. It would not have worked out at all and China would not have been at all happy.

Argentina of course is another matter.

Actually I was playing devil's advocate r.e. the Falklands. I think the democratically arrived at wishes of the population, given the history, trump any claim.

And, Argentina has no legitimate claim. They never owned the Falklands, ever.

The last word is always important toy you it seems. To repeat - Hong Kong was given to the UK and was owned by them.

And, it seems to be just as important to you, too.

Nevertheless, you're applying a very liberal definition of the term "given." Makes it sound like China was so enamored with Queen Victoria that they just wrapped it up in a bow and "gave" it to her. Maybe you meant that Britain defeating China in the First Opium War and exacting under the peace terms the concession of Hong Kong to the UK was a "gift" given in accordance with the first "Unequal Treaty" (The Treaty of Nanking), in which the UK had no obligations at all.

Anyway - it doesn't matter. China at one time owned Hong Kong. Argentina NEVER, EVER -- not once -- not EVER -- owned or had an interest in the Falklands. Do you not see a difference in China saying, "hey, you know that property of ours that you took in the Opium Wars -- let's have it back, ay?" and, Argentina saying, "hey, you know those islands that were never part of Argentina and that no Argentinians ever lived on - how 'bout handing them over?"

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Anyone else find the whole concept of one piece of land owning another faintly ludicrous?

No, I find it utterly absurd.

Shut up! Remember, my kettle owns your teapot!

[Audley Strange]

Anyone else find the whole concept of one piece of land owning another faintly ludicrous?

No, I find it utterly absurd.

Shut up! Remember, my kettle owns your teapot!

Fuck you Zammo Chegwin, your kettle is black, my teapot is ebony!

[Coito ergo sum]

For a shirt lifter you are very right wing Lozzer.

I'm not right wing. It just so happens that the 3,000 habitants of the islands are British, and a foreign nation wants volition over them when they have no right, whatsoever.

Funny how we some people make such a big patriotic deal out of the Falklands, and yet the Montserratians were ignored when they needed our help.

Are you referring to the 1995 volcano?

[Coito ergo sum]

Anyone else find the whole concept of one piece of land owning another faintly ludicrous?

Yes, but since pieces of land don't, in fact, own each other, I find the whole concept more or less unimportant.

[Pappa]

Argentina NEVER, EVER -- not once -- not EVER -- owned or had an interest in the Falklands.

This article (which does seem to be somewhat biased) claims otherwise: http://www.cancilleria.gov.ar/portal/se ... html#link1

[Jesus_of_Nazareth]

What's the relevance of "it didn't have to be?" So what? If we take that as read, then that just means that the UK caved unjustifiably to Chinese pressure.

I think the British were quite justified in caving in to the Chinese demands. The Chinese would have taken back all of HK - and even back then we had run out of gunboats .

If we'd cared 2 hoots for the Hong Kong people we would have given them all Passports - the irony is that we were worried about being swamped by immigrants ........but that long before the Blair / Brown open borders decade.

But before we left, we spent all the spare cash . Even if that meant we left a very nice airport (and the funny thing is that we can't manage to do even that at home ).

[Coito ergo sum]

Argentina NEVER, EVER -- not once -- not EVER -- owned or had an interest in the Falklands.

This article (which does seem to be somewhat biased) claims otherwise: http://www.cancilleria.gov.ar/portal/se ... html#link1

I don't see how that establishes an ownership or other interest in the islands. The Brits staked their claim in 1690 and had a governor there in 1765 or something like that.

All was fine and dandy, until about 1829, when the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata decided to "declare" sovereignty over the Falklands. A German named Louis Vermet had set up a settlement under British auspices on the island and was trading and/or pirating, depending on who you want to talk to, and so the United Provinces decided to declare him Governor under the United Provinces (against British interests). The United Provinces arose out of the Argentine wars of independence which occurred around 1815 to 1818. That was the infant Argentina, and from 1690 to 1824, Argentina had no ownership of the Fallklands. At all. Mainly because there was no Argentina, and the UK had pretty much undisputed ownership which it defended from incursions by Spain and France.

So, sure, Argentina started demanding that the islands be handed over, starting with a bogus appointment of a German trader as governor of the islands on behalf of the United Provinces of Rio de La Plata, and then it kept beating that horse ever since then, claiming that it had been wronged when the Brits expelled Argentines who were acting to wrest the Falklands from Britain - those were Argentine settlers in and around 1825 through 1829. All they're doing, though, is demanding something that isn't theirs. Britain had been there for 140 years already.

Other than a transparent settlement attempt in about 1829, which was promptly expelled by the Brits, what is Argentina's claim? The Argentines are entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.

Argentina has no more claim to the Falklands than Canada does to Alaska
Giving the Falkland Islands to Argentina makes as much sense as giving Alaska to Canada: none whatsoever, says George Grant.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... laska.html

[Rum]

What's the relevance of "it didn't have to be?" So what? If we take that as read, then that just means that the UK caved unjustifiably to Chinese pressure.

I think the British were quite justified in caving in to the Chinese demands. The Chinese would have taken back all of HK - and even back then we had run out of gunboats .

If we'd cared 2 hoots for the Hong Kong people we would have given them all Passports - the irony is that we were worried about being swamped by immigrants ........but that long before the Blair / Brown open borders decade.

But before we left, we spent all the spare cash . Even if that meant we left a very nice airport (and the funny thing is that we can't manage to do even that at home ).

Having lived there for 20 or so years I learned to be very conscious of the fact that if China wanted to they could send several million people over the border and swamped the place. It was unrealistic to consider the option of resisting China's wishes even though we could have legally.

I think we did the best we could. Patton was a good last governor and made sure that HK became a special economic zone. He also broadened democracy somewhat and got certain guarantees from the Chinese about retaining it. The doom merchants turned out to be wrong and HK remains much as it was when I was there it turns out.

[Svartalf]

For a shirt lifter you are very right wing Lozzer.

I'm not right wing. It just so happens that the 3,000 habitants of the islands are British, and a foreign nation wants volition over them when they have no right, whatsoever.

Funny how we some people make such a big patriotic deal out of the Falklands, and yet the Montserratians were ignored when they needed our help.

You mean when the Soufriere erupted 15 years ago, or are you referring to some other event?

[Pappa]

For a shirt lifter you are very right wing Lozzer.

I'm not right wing. It just so happens that the 3,000 habitants of the islands are British, and a foreign nation wants volition over them when they have no right, whatsoever.

Funny how we some people make such a big patriotic deal out of the Falklands, and yet the Montserratians were ignored when they needed our help.

You mean when the Soufriere erupted 15 years ago, or are you referring to some other event?

Was it really that long ago?

Many Montserratians had nowhere to go, their homes destroyed. As British passport holders they assumed they could come here, but they were blocked from arriving en mass by the UK Govt. (IIRC).

[drl2]

Here's your new career, Lozzer. In the navy. You will finally meet a handsome prince! He may have to have a wife, too, so you have to share.

Really, Rationalia? Four pages have gone by since this statement was made, and nobody has posted the obvious? Well, I guess it's up to me to lower the caliber of the conversation around here.

[Coito ergo sum]

1,000s of Montserrat citizens came to the US as refugees in 1995 and 1996.

Weren't there only about 11000 Montserrat residents at the time of the eruption. Some fled to neighboring islands, some fled to the UK.

Britain offered 2,500 pounds ($4,020) per adult, less for children, to help islanders relocate to Britain or elsewhere in the Caribbean. http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9708/24/montserrat/ - That seems pretty reasonable, for 15 years ago.

Were they really abandoned?

Overall, the disaster response by British government was considered a success with only 19 confirmed fatalities and hardly any measurable increase in communicable disease and physical ill health. Throughout the emergency, which involved four major evacuations at little notice, everyone had a roof over their head and no one went hungry.

Senior Monteserratian officials suggested informally that had there been a needs assessment, up to 20% of the beneficiaries in late 1998 would have been removed from the lists. Potentially the most serious criticism of the voucher scheme and its successor was that they fostered a dependency culture amongst some of those remaining on the island.

http://fex.ennonline.net/10/volcano.aspx

[Pappa]

1,000s of Montserrat citizens came to the US as refugees in 1995 and 1996.

Weren't there only about 11000 Montserrat residents at the time of the eruption. Some fled to neighboring islands, some fled to the UK.

Britain offered 2,500 pounds ($4,020) per adult, less for children, to help islanders relocate to Britain or elsewhere in the Caribbean. http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9708/24/montserrat/ - That seems pretty reasonable, for 15 years ago.

Were they really abandoned?

Overall, the disaster response by British government was considered a success with only 19 confirmed fatalities and hardly any measurable increase in communicable disease and physical ill health. Throughout the emergency, which involved four major evacuations at little notice, everyone had a roof over their head and no one went hungry.

Senior Monteserratian officials suggested informally that had there been a needs assessment, up to 20% of the beneficiaries in late 1998 would have been removed from the lists. Potentially the most serious criticism of the voucher scheme and its successor was that they fostered a dependency culture amongst some of those remaining on the island.

http://fex.ennonline.net/10/volcano.aspx

Most of that help occurred two years later after Tony Blair became PM and Clare Short was Secretary of State for International Development. The initial reaction of the (then Tory) Government was to increase aid a bit, make it clear that while Monteserratians were British passport holders they didn't have an automatic right to settle here and to refuse to grant work permits to Monteserratians who were able to travel here. They were scared that most of the population would suddenly turn up on our doorstep and did their best to ensure it wouldn't happen.

[klr]

People wouldn't make that mistake if you'd just placed it a little closer to Europe.

That's the beauty of maps, you just draw lines on them and put colors, regardless of geographic reality... I mean, you'd believe that Gibraltar would be a Spanish town, and that Ceuta and Melilla were in Morocco wouldn't you?

Guam, Puerto Rico...

Puerto Rico is a US territory by consent. I'll reevaluate when the Puerto Ricans vote to separate.

Guam is American.

1. Prior to 1521 it was autonomous, populated by Pacific islanders, running their own affairs.
2. The Spanish took over, and held it until 1898.
3. The US and Spain had a war, and Spain lost. The US took over Guam.
4. In 1941, the Japanese invaded and took it over.
5. After 1945, the US retook control.
6. Presently, the people there haven't elected to declare or vote for independence. There are some movements there to become a State or to even unite with Hawaii to become part of the State of Hawaii.

If the US was to cede control of Guam, it would be to a self-governing Chamorro people, and not to Japan or Spain, or the Phillipines.

It's close to the Philippines, and that would present a good analogy here. The argument that Argentina should have the Falklands is like saying the Philippines or Japan or China have some right to Guam.

... or that Japan gets first dibs on the Ryukyus, China ditto on Tibet - which of course is what both have done. Or any one of hundreds of other similar situations across the world, either present or historical. All it boils down to is "I'm bigger than you, and closest to you. Ergo, you're mine".