Argentina opens up second front in Falklands Kerfuffle

[Svartalf]

Take your word about Northern Ireland history, its not really a derail in so much after a certain amount of time it doesnt really matter how a people came to dominate a land mass. You cant' practically or fairly change it. Sure your great great grand daddy was a genocidal maniac or the government of 1732 manipulated the situation to get into thiat position but you can't punish people for what happened in ancient history

And that was why I raised NI as an example.

The suggestion was made that the Falklanders should simply be moved to the UK and the land given to Argentina. I said, by way of illustration as to why this would not be right, that unionists in NI could be "repatriated".

Such "ethnic cleansing is morally repugnant to me.

Funny, it's not to me... Of course, I have some familial memory telling me I should own some land in Ulster or near the Boyne Valley...

[JimC]

Given that the original settlers of the islands were British, and Britain has always had sovereignty over the islands, and that there were no indigenous people, and that the current inhabitants overwhelmingly wish to remain British, Argentina simply has no case.

excuse me? the 'Original Settlers' of Ireland were Gaels, not Brithons... and Gaels seem to have come from Spain... Nobody I know of understands yet how Gaelic mutated into its own group from the more common Brythonic Celtic group, or if they are related like Latin and Greek, that is, not actually, but very similar through an apparent process of parallel evolution within the Indo European language framework.

Svarty, I meant the Falkland Islands...

[JimC]

Given that the original settlers of the islands were British, and Britain has always had sovereignty over the islands, and that there were no indigenous people, and that the current inhabitants overwhelmingly wish to remain British, Argentina simply has no case.

Geography? England isn't even on the same continental shelf.

Geography is not the only possible determinant. The people's origins, and (more importantly) their clearly expressed current wishes, trump geography.

Hawaii, anyone?

A LOT of native Hawai'ians would just be glad to be rid of the ha'oles.

Fine - but there were no aboriginal inhabitants of the Falklands...

[Svartalf]

Given that the original settlers of the islands were British, and Britain has always had sovereignty over the islands, and that there were no indigenous people, and that the current inhabitants overwhelmingly wish to remain British, Argentina simply has no case.

excuse me? the 'Original Settlers' of Ireland were Gaels, not Brithons... and Gaels seem to have come from Spain... Nobody I know of understands yet how Gaelic mutated into its own group from the more common Brythonic Celtic group, or if they are related like Latin and Greek, that is, not actually, but very similar through an apparent process of parallel evolution within the Indo European language framework.

Svarty, I meant the Falkland Islands...

In context, it looked like you were responding to the Irish themed posts

[JimC]

Given that the original settlers of the islands were British, and Britain has always had sovereignty over the islands, and that there were no indigenous people, and that the current inhabitants overwhelmingly wish to remain British, Argentina simply has no case.

excuse me? the 'Original Settlers' of Ireland were Gaels, not Brithons... and Gaels seem to have come from Spain... Nobody I know of understands yet how Gaelic mutated into its own group from the more common Brythonic Celtic group, or if they are related like Latin and Greek, that is, not actually, but very similar through an apparent process of parallel evolution within the Indo European language framework.

Svarty, I meant the Falkland Islands...

In context, it looked like you were responding to the Irish themed posts

Too many fucking islands in this thread!

[Coito ergo sum]

When British citizens get attacked, public opinion tends not to favour the attackers. We get a bit upset.

Thats not to say some people would rather they werent British citizens (like me), but they are and we have a responsibility to defend them

Why would you "rather" they not be British citizens?

Because they are 1000's of miles away and cost a fortune to defend (if there really is oil there its a different matter) . If I could go back in time and make sure we never discovered the place in the first place I would.

Just sell it to Argentina,then. Give the Islanders the option to move to another British piece of land, or become Argentines. Fuck 'em.

I would offer the natives in the Falkland Islands a million pounds each ( 2 billion in total) to vote to become part of Argentina. It would be highly cost effective and I bet the islanders would go for it however I suspect the British public wouldnt be too impressed

I doubt the islanders would go for it, even at a million pounds each, because as soon as they became under the jurisdiction of Argentina, things would definitely change and they likely wouldn't have their caches of money respected by their new masters.

[Coito ergo sum]

yeah, most school children do too.

It would be nice to think (wishful thinking, I know) that we have more than kids running our affairs. If the island has no benefit to the UK, then why waste so much money on it? Fucking sell it to someone.

Because people live there who are just as much a part of a certain country as those living in London. Those people live lives, have children, and follow the rules applicable to UK-ers. Selling it to Argentina is to sell them down the river, and some modicum of empathy and compassion dictate that if they've honored their bit of the social contract that the State with whom they have that contract ought to honor its bit.

[Coito ergo sum]

Given that the original settlers of the islands were British, and Britain has always had sovereignty over the islands, and that there were no indigenous people, and that the current inhabitants overwhelmingly wish to remain British, Argentina simply has no case.

Geography? England isn't even on the same continental shelf.

Geography is not the only possible determinant. The people's origins, and (more importantly) their clearly expressed current wishes, trump geography.

Hawaii, anyone?

A LOT of native Hawai'ians would just be glad to be rid of the ha'oles.

A lot of Long Islanders want to break away from New York, too. When it becomes a majority, let's talk.

[Coito ergo sum]

Given that the original settlers of the islands were British, and Britain has always had sovereignty over the islands, and that there were no indigenous people, and that the current inhabitants overwhelmingly wish to remain British, Argentina simply has no case.

excuse me? the 'Original Settlers' of Ireland were Gaels, not Brithons... and Gaels seem to have come from Spain... Nobody I know of understands yet how Gaelic mutated into its own group from the more common Brythonic Celtic group, or if they are related like Latin and Greek, that is, not actually, but very similar through an apparent process of parallel evolution within the Indo European language framework.

Svarty, I meant the Falkland Islands...

In context, it looked like you were responding to the Irish themed posts

Too many fucking islands in this thread!

I'm holding out for independence for Gilligan's Island. I heard Argentina wants that handed over too.

[pErvinalia]

yeah, most school children do too.

It would be nice to think (wishful thinking, I know) that we have more than kids running our affairs. If the island has no benefit to the UK, then why waste so much money on it? Fucking sell it to someone.

Because people live there who are just as much a part of a certain country as those living in London. Those people live lives, have children, and follow the rules applicable to UK-ers. Selling it to Argentina is to sell them down the river, and some modicum of empathy and compassion dictate that if they've honored their bit of the social contract that the State with whom they have that contract ought to honor its bit.

The state is WAY bigger than a couple of thousand people on a rock the other side of the world. Sell the Islands, repatriate those who want repatriation, and then be done with the whole debacle.

[Coito ergo sum]

Fine - but there were no aboriginal inhabitants of the Falklands...

And Argentina never owned it. Argentina's claim, to my knowledge, traces back to David Jewett, an American pirate/privateer who landed on the island in the early 1800's and asserted a claim on behalf of the United Provinces of the River Plate (later to become Argentina), but that the British had defended their claim since the 1600s, and had a plaque planted on the island publicly announcing the British claim from as early as, like, 1775. This is well before Argentina was a twinkle in its momma's eye.

So, the Argentines can point to an American pirate who accidentally landed on an island group already claimed by the UK, and this pirate planted a flag he had no right to plant.

[Coito ergo sum]

yeah, most school children do too.

It would be nice to think (wishful thinking, I know) that we have more than kids running our affairs. If the island has no benefit to the UK, then why waste so much money on it? Fucking sell it to someone.

Because people live there who are just as much a part of a certain country as those living in London. Those people live lives, have children, and follow the rules applicable to UK-ers. Selling it to Argentina is to sell them down the river, and some modicum of empathy and compassion dictate that if they've honored their bit of the social contract that the State with whom they have that contract ought to honor its bit.

The state is WAY bigger than a couple of thousand people on a rock the other side of the world. Sell the Islands, repatriate those who want repatriation, and then be done with the whole debacle.

That may be easier on you, and seen as the easy way out from the point of view of an onlooker, but other factors can enter into it:

1. Compassion and understanding for people who have lived under the law of the UK for going on 190 years, and have no desire to leave their country.
2. Defense of one's country's territorial integrity -- one has to draw the line somewhere. Perhaps France wants the Channel Islands. It may well be easier and less expensive to just sell them to France, and there are very few people on those islands, but is it the right thing to do?
3. It's only a debacle because you don't care about it. By your logic, why don't you advocate that your country give away chunks of its sparsely populated land. Australia is a pretty big island, which was taken by force from its original inhabitants. Just sell it to one of the neighboring countries and have done with the whole debacle.

[MrJonno]

I doubt the islanders would go for it, even at a million pounds each, because as soon as they became under the jurisdiction of Argentina, things would definitely change and they likely wouldn't have their caches of money respected by their new masters.

Should have mentioned British/EU citizenship (not sure if they have it already) was a given, with a million you should be able to get a one bedroom flat in London or a street 'up North' + ownership of any current Falkland's property (but not farming land). I would expect them to go and live somewhere else but they might want to stay.

[MrJonno]

1. Compassion and understanding for people who have lived under the law of the UK for going on 190 years, and have no desire to leave their country.
2. Defense of one's country's territorial integrity -- one has to draw the line somewhere. Perhaps France wants the Channel Islands. It may well be easier and less expensive to just sell them to France, and there are very few people on those islands, but is it the right thing to do?
3. It's only a debacle because you don't care about it. By your logic, why don't you advocate that your country give away chunks of its sparsely populated land. Australia is a pretty big island, which was taken by force from its original inhabitants. Just sell it to one of the neighboring countries and have done with the whole debacle.

I'm with you on 1)

The other are up for negotiation

2) We did abandon the Channel Islands in WW2 as it wasn't economic or military possible to defend them. India was British, the difference between territorial integrity and empire is academic

3) Selling bits of land to other countries used to extremely common. Much of the US was created that way, Alaska relatively recent.


The UK is morally obliged to defend its citizens in the Falklands and Northern Ireland but it doesnt mean I have to be happy about it

[Coito ergo sum]

1. Compassion and understanding for people who have lived under the law of the UK for going on 190 years, and have no desire to leave their country.
2. Defense of one's country's territorial integrity -- one has to draw the line somewhere. Perhaps France wants the Channel Islands. It may well be easier and less expensive to just sell them to France, and there are very few people on those islands, but is it the right thing to do?
3. It's only a debacle because you don't care about it. By your logic, why don't you advocate that your country give away chunks of its sparsely populated land. Australia is a pretty big island, which was taken by force from its original inhabitants. Just sell it to one of the neighboring countries and have done with the whole debacle.

I'm with you on 1)

The other are up for negotiation

2) We did abandon the Channel Islands in WW2 as it wasn't economic or military possible to defend them. India was British, the difference between territorial integrity and empire is academic

The Germans took the channel islands. That's a different animal altogether.

India was British, but India wasn't empty when the Brits got there. The Brits conquered it, made a colony of it, and exploited its people and resources for the benefit of the British Crown and country. Returning the country to the people from whom it was conquered is wholly different than capitulating to the demands of a country that never owned it, had no people there, etc., that's a different matter altogether, isn't it? Particularly when there was nobody living there when the Brits got there. Argentina did not exist when the Brits got there. Argentina's claim is based on an American privateer planting a flag after accidentally landing there. How in the world does that compare to India? If the Falkland Islanders wanted out of the UK, I would most likely have a different opinion of the matter. But, the people there want to stay in, and capitulating to baseless extortion is a bad precedent to set.

3) Selling bits of land to other countries used to extremely common. Much of the US was created that way, Alaska relatively recent.

Sure, there is nothing stopping the UK from selling it. The question is whether it is the right thing to do. Whether it is the right thing to do depends on the facts and circumstances. Here, the facts are that we have a British population that is overwhelmingly supportive of staying British. We have saber rattling by Argentina claiming they rightfully own the property, but the British have owned it since well before Argentina's independence from Spain. It was uninhabited when the Europeans got there, so nobody was conquered. Argentina's claim stems from an American privateer who planted the flag of the United Provinces of La Plata when he accidentally landed there.

The UK is morally obliged to defend its citizens in the Falklands and Northern Ireland but it doesnt mean I have to be happy about it

You don't have to be happy about anything in particular.