Sean Penn is an idiot

[FBM]

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...

Are close to what much larger state that could have pretensions?
Nope, those can be US or independant if they want, but they don't seem to want.

I heard some disgruntlement from Hawaii a while back...but I don't think they want real independence, either. Not sure.

[Coito ergo sum]

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.

[FBM]

erm. I was trying to be funny with that...

[Coito ergo sum]

erm. I was trying to be funny with that...

[Thumpalumpacus]

Who cares? The UK will cling to those islands as the last remaining vestige of Empire, the Argentines will nurse their butthurt, and Sean Penn will remain clueless.

[Rum]

And Sean Penn is wrong because...?

Because the Falklands have been a British territory long before the national inception of the Argentine state. The islands are sovereign, and they're entitled to self-determination. They are British, and they want to stay that way. It was 'colonised' by the British, yes, but it's been almost two centuries. There are no 'indigenous' Falk-landers, and no Argentinian has any claim to the land let alone the Argentine government.

Hong Kong was a barren rock when it was ceded to the UK. By your logic it should have stayed with us When it was 'handed back' it looked like this.

It was a barren rock that belonged to China.

The Falklands never belonged to Argentina, and therefore it cannot be "handed BACK" Argentina. It can only be handed "over" to Argentina.

It was given to the UK. It was British. The bit on the mainland, i.e. the northern bit of Kowloon and the New Territories were leased to the UK for 99 years. They were handed back at the end of the period. Hong Kong didn't have to be.

[Clinton Huxley]

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.

[Rum]

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.

[Coito ergo sum]

And Sean Penn is wrong because...?

Because the Falklands have been a British territory long before the national inception of the Argentine state. The islands are sovereign, and they're entitled to self-determination. They are British, and they want to stay that way. It was 'colonised' by the British, yes, but it's been almost two centuries. There are no 'indigenous' Falk-landers, and no Argentinian has any claim to the land let alone the Argentine government.

Hong Kong was a barren rock when it was ceded to the UK. By your logic it should have stayed with us When it was 'handed back' it looked like this.

It was a barren rock that belonged to China.

The Falklands never belonged to Argentina, and therefore it cannot be "handed BACK" Argentina. It can only be handed "over" to Argentina.

It was given to the UK. It was British. The bit on the mainland, i.e. the northern bit of Kowloon and the New Territories were leased to the UK for 99 years. They were handed back at the end of the period. Hong Kong didn't have to be.

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. No need to do that with respect to Argentina's unjustified demands, is there?

That being said, settling an island that Argentina had nothing to do with, and taking land from China in the First Opium War and then returning to China, are two completely different contexts. At least China could say that prior to 1839 the land was part of China. Argentina can't say that.

[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.

[Rum]

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.

[Audley Strange]

So I assume there will be an escalation on hostilities as soon as the Austerity Measures bite and the coalition's polling figures plummet? I'd assume this spear-rattling is mutually beneficial to both parties.

[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.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

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

[Audley Strange]

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

No, I find it utterly absurd.