| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Falklands
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Topic ClosedFalklands

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 5>
Author
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Feb 2012 at 23:19
Originally posted by Mixcoatl Mixcoatl wrote:


"Falkland Islanders have the right of self determination."
"Britain is arrogant and in decline."
How is that even an answer?



It is not an answer, of course. It is a forecast.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 24 Feb 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 3529
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Feb 2012 at 01:01
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

The U.N. is fine. Satan is the Anglosaxon colonial civilization; that's all.
 
Why don't you just shut up? WinkTongue
 
-Akolouthos
 
EDIT: Sorry, pinguin; after looking at my post, it seemed like it could -- even with the use of my two emoticons -- be taken seriously. I was actually referencing the situation between Juan Carlos I and Hugo Chavez a couple of years ago, as I'm sure you know, since it seemed to me like your comment -- while not being entirely without merit -- sounded a bit like Chavez's rhetoric. I realize you probably haven't read this yet, as I am correcting this mere minutes after having written it, but I wanted to make sure you took no offense. I also figured tha you would get the joke, but didn't know how many others would, and consequently decided to make sure everyone saw it was in good humour. Tongue
 
By the way, while I'm speaking with you: Did you ever comment in that thread a week or so ago where that new member was asking a question about identifying a piece of Mesoamerican art? You were the first person that came to my mind. I could try to look up the link for you, if you like.


Edited by Akolouthos - 20 Feb 2012 at 01:07
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Feb 2012 at 01:43
Chavez is a dead man. Cancer is taken rid of him. Besides, Chavez don't represent Latin Americans at all, but communism.


Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Feb 2012 at 01:44
Originally posted by Akolouthos Akolouthos wrote:


By the way, while I'm speaking with you: Did you ever comment in that thread a week or so ago where that new member was asking a question about identifying a piece of Mesoamerican art? You were the first person that came to my mind. I could try to look up the link for you, if you like.


Please do.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Feb 2012 at 09:34
My principle criticism with my British cousins is the extent to which they have engaged in self emasculation. Despite being responsible for one of the most innovative and successful empires in the history of absolutely everything, they moronically obsess over trying to appease whingers who have no claim to anything, and apologising for human rights errors which are miniscule compared with their overall achievements.

The Argentines have no claim to the Falklands. This is British territory and the British should reap the fruits of having been intelligent and skilled enough to arrive there before anyone else. The British have given the world far more than Argentina ever has or will. In fact, the tiny island of Great Britain has done more to advance the quality of life and knowledge of human civilisation than the whole of South America. Stick that in your crack pipe and smoke it.

Let's get a clue here. The vindictive and bitter Argentines, who are simulataneously both losers and aggressors regarding the Falklands, are so lacking in grace that they refuse to allow mail or food commerce with the islands. Just as the Spaniards refuse to process the mail of the Gibraltans just as all EU nations do for their neigbours. And they wonder why the people living in these areas prefer the responsible and fair Brits.

As much as I have quarrels with how the British run their own country, I would take them over the petty and vindictive Argentines. It's high time the Argentinians concentrated on getting themselves out of debt and hyper inflation before they try to claim responsibility for the welfare of an already much more independent and successful clan of human beings (the Falklanders).
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 May 2007
Location: Northern Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 4959
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Feb 2012 at 09:35

Pinguin: Why do you not support a Chilean withdrawal from Easter island instead? That island belongs to Chile in a lesser degree than the Falklands belong to Argentina.

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Feb 2012 at 09:37
Oh and I hope the Brits absolutely rape the oil reserves there and enjoy a terrific quality of life from it.
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3608
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Feb 2012 at 20:58
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

--lot's of nonsense--


So, let's see. 


Argentina, a European country that wiped out or pushed away the native inhabitants from their lands, is now demanding support to conquer the Falklands (this is an English-speaking forum, keep the French away) and pursue a bit of ethnic cleansing to get rid of the native inhabitants. This is based on the notion that they have some old colonial claim - meanwhile they are cursing about colonisation being evil. 

Further, you are calling Britain satan. The British, who arrived to barren islands without inhabitants half a century before the existance of Argentina, where they settled trying to make a living. No native lost land, no native was conquered  (maybe they ate a pinguin or two when food was running low). The descendants of the second set of settlers, now in the ninth or tenth generation, who are by all definitions the natives of the islands, want to stay part of Britain. How you can possibly think Argentina has any claim on the Falklands would be totally incomprehensible to anyone who doesn't know of your anglophobia. 

Then finally, you are praising the Spaniards for being nice and friendly to the natives since they just exterminated, enslaved and force-converted them a little bit. I hope that one day you will realise you are the perfect victim of the 'blame-the-foreigner' scheme. 



Edited by Styrbiorn - 20 Feb 2012 at 21:08
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Feb 2012 at 01:56
The Falklands never had natives.However, the first settlers were Argentineans. People that was pushed away by the bulling superpower.

But don't worry. The more arrogant they are, the fall is harder, and British is following that path. Ask the Spanish, for instance.

Actually, I believe that by the time Queen Elizabeth is 120 years on power, Britain will be in a very bad shape.



Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Feb 2012 at 01:58
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:


Further, you are calling Britain satan.


If I don't recall wrong, it is was crazy Reagan who started to talk about Evil Empires... forgetting his own country was quite a good candidate to that name. So, confusing politics with superstition (I mean, religion) is an anglosaxon tradition.


Edited by pinguin - 21 Feb 2012 at 01:59
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master


Joined: 05 Jan 2006
Location: Bush Capital
Status: Offline
Points: 7830
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Feb 2012 at 07:30

Originally posted by Pingo Pingo wrote:

The Falklands never had natives.However, the first settlers were Argentineans. People that was pushed away by the bulling superpower.


The first settlers were French, the second were British, the third were Spanish. Then they all left and the islands became uninhabited again. Shortly afterwards the British came back, and after that the country of Argentina was created.

Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3608
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Feb 2012 at 20:20
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

The Falklands never had natives.However, the first settlers were Argentineans. People that was pushed away by the bulling superpower.
Malouin fishermen, how did they become Argentinian, pray tell? 
And of course the Falklands have natives. They are British. Do you think the Mapuche tribe was formed magically from Andean clay? 


Edited by Styrbiorn - 21 Feb 2012 at 20:22
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Feb 2012 at 00:13
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim Omar al Hashim wrote:

Originally posted by Pingo Pingo wrote:

The Falklands never had natives.However, the first settlers were Argentineans. People that was pushed away by the bulling superpower.


The first settlers were French, the second were British, the third were Spanish. Then they all left and the islands became uninhabited again. Shortly afterwards the British came back, and after that the country of Argentina was created.



Don't forget Brits took the Argentinean Malvinas from theirs legitimate owners in revenge for being badly beaten in the River Plate region.

 
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Feb 2012 at 00:15
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:

 
Malouin fishermen, how did they become Argentinian, pray tell? 
And of course the Falklands have natives. They are British.


Brits are native to the British Islands only.

Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:


Do you think the Mapuche tribe was formed magically from Andean clay? 


The men made of clay is an afroasiatic mithology. The Mapuches are the survivors of the flood produced by Cai-Cai. Got it?
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
Kaveh ye Ahangar

Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Location: MidX,Engelistan
Status: Offline
Points: 12491
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Feb 2012 at 12:24
Most Argintinians are not native to South America and are native to italy, Spain and wherever else their ancestors came from, by your standards. So they have no claim to Argentina or anywhere else in the Americas, nevermind the Falklands.

Their president looks native to Italy or Spain.  What is she doing leading a country where she has no right to be?


Edited by Zagros - 22 Feb 2012 at 12:25
"There was glory in pissing, Corabb decided as he watched the stream curve out and make that familiar but unique sound as it hit the ground." So true.
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3608
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Feb 2012 at 12:44
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:

 
Malouin fishermen, how did they become Argentinian, pray tell? 
And of course the Falklands have natives. They are British.


Brits are native to the British Islands only.


You are correct: the natives of the Falklands are Falklanders; their ancestry is British though. And those Argentinians better get on a boat back to Europe, since they certainly aren't native to South America. Your double standards are reaching new heights.LOL
Back to Top
xristar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 05 Nov 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1151
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Feb 2012 at 13:20
This is getting retarded.
When we speak of natives, we mean a population that lived before the islands were discovered by Europeans. We could claim that such a population would have had the historic right of "ownership" of the islands. Not that such a thing mattered much to the Europeans as we well know, but we can accept this as a possibility for arguement's sake.
Well, the islands were uninhabitted. That settlers arrived is unimportant. Who sold them their properties? If Argentina does not recognize the british administation, why should she recognize the population as legal? Even worse, the islands are practically empty. They have 3,000 inhabitants most of whom live in single coastal village. I used the example of Cyprus in my last post to show how a similar sized island with a typical population density has over 1 million inhabitatns.
Speaking of which, why not consider dividing the islands? If the British settles are so adamant about not having Argentine masters, then let them create their "Falklandia" with Stanley as its capital, and Argentines have their own "Malvina" province. Why should the Falklands be indivisible?

I have no problem accepting the British possesion of the islands, but do not try to legitimze it with terms other than military might.
Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new?
it hath been already of old time, which was before us.
-Ecclesiastes
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Feb 2012 at 14:46
It doesn't take military might to establish possession of a currently uninhabited piece of territory. Any sovereign nation can claim ownership of such a territory, but it has to establish a settled population and demonstrate its de facto jurisdiction.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3608
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Feb 2012 at 16:55
Originally posted by xristar xristar wrote:

This is getting retarded.
When we speak of natives, we mean a population that lived before the islands were discovered by Europeans.

What a ridiculously euro-centric point of view. They have lived there for many generations; no one lived there before. How more native can you become?


Quote Even worse, the islands are practically empty. They have 3,000 inhabitants most of whom live in single coastal village. I used the example of Cyprus in my last post to show how a similar sized island with a typical population density has over 1 million inhabitatns.
So what if they are empty by your standards. Should Greenland be given to Canada? Who cares what the Inuits think, they are so few anyway.

Quote Speaking of which, why not consider dividing the islands? If the British settles are so adamant about not having Argentine masters, then let them create their "Falklandia" with Stanley as its capital, and Argentines have their own "Malvina" province. Why should the Falklands be indivisible?
Continuing with Cyprus as an example, I presume you support giving half of it to Turkey as well, then?
Do you honestly think Argentina would settle for a part only? 

Quote
I have no problem accepting the British possesion of the islands, but do not try to legitimze it with terms other than military might.

Why not? What's wrong with self-determination? According to that principle I expect it to be very few cses simpler to rseolve.
Back to Top
xristar View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 05 Nov 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1151
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Feb 2012 at 18:17
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:

Originally posted by xristar xristar wrote:

This is getting retarded.
When we speak of natives, we mean a population that lived before the islands were discovered by Europeans.

What a ridiculously euro-centric point of view. They have lived there for many generations; no one lived there before. How more native can you become?

By being already there before the white man came and declared your land possesion of her Majesty the Queen. Read my last post again and explain what exactly you don't understand.


Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:

Quote Even worse, the islands are practically empty. They have 3,000 inhabitants most of whom live in single coastal village. I used the example of Cyprus in my last post to show how a similar sized island with a typical population density has over 1 million inhabitatns.
So what if they are empty by your standards. Should Greenland be given to Canada? Who cares what the Inuits think, they are so few anyway.

Greenland is not really contested territory. Also, Inuits are natives of Greenland, while the Danish settlers aren't. By reading Wiki, it seems that only the Norwegians and the Danish have laid claims, which they have solved in favor of Danemark. If Norway claimed the land again, and the international community stood aside -as is the case of the Falklands- then yes, I don't think we would care that the Danish-Greenlanders object the Norwegian rule and prefer Danish. However the majority are Inuit and seems to drive for independence. In a conflict I would support whatever the Inuit want and not the Danish or Norwegian claims.

Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:

Quote Speaking of which, why not consider dividing the islands? If the British settles are so adamant about not having Argentine masters, then let them create their "Falklandia" with Stanley as its capital, and Argentines have their own "Malvina" province. Why should the Falklands be indivisible?
Continuing with Cyprus as an example, I presume you support giving half of it to Turkey as well, then?
Do you honestly think Argentina would settle for a part only?

Cyprus is de facto divided and even if gets reunited it will be as a confederation. I wouldn't mind giving a part to Turkey if it was proportional to the size and economic activity of the muslim population. As it happened in 1974 it was grossly disproportional and cannot be accepted. The Turks know that and every plan that has been proposed assumes concessions towards the Greek side.
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:

Quote
I have no problem accepting the British possesion of the islands, but do not try to legitimze it with terms other than military might.

Why not? What's wrong with self-determination? According to that principle I expect it to be very few cses simpler to rseolve.
In history and today the right of self-determination of vastly bigger populations have been trampled for reasons such as economic and military interests.
Also the right of self determination does not mean that the few settlers can claim the vast uninhabitted/unworked areas as their possesion.
Compare Israel, and the Jewish settlement's legitimiztion by stating that they settled empty areas. If the extent of Arab self determination ended at the edge of their villages/fields then why should the end of Stanley village plus a few grazing fields not be the border of a British Falkand Republic?


Edited by xristar - 22 Feb 2012 at 18:18
Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new?
it hath been already of old time, which was before us.
-Ecclesiastes
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Feb 2012 at 19:56
@xristar- Your post reminds me of the rather quaint claims of white colonists in North America, that suggested that because aboriginals weren't farming, or building cotton mills, as the Europeans would have then thought normal, why then- they weren't really using the land! Might as well get rid of them. Who cares is others may have a different view of land use.
 
Maybe Falkland Islanders enjoy having space to roam around in solitude. Indeed, that would seem to be the biggest draw in living there- there aren't too many others.
 
We can soon get on to shaky ground when deciding just what belongs to who. For example, the Norse and Innuit, at least the descendants of the innuit that are there now, arrived at more or less the same time in parts of the Arctic. And of course written records are pretty sparse from that era. Who's #1?
 
Jews, for the most part, did not settle empty ground, but expelled the original Arab inhabitants in one way or another. The former may claim occupation from 2000 years ago, a rather shakey proposition. They may claim better utilization of the land, argueably something factually (if not ethically) more supportable.
 
Northern Canada is virtually uninhabited by world standards. Is it up for grabs? Some suggest that there are lots of untapped resources in the region. Is the present claim shakey?
 
Much better, if you ask me, to go with pragmatism, and the will of the present day inhabitants, as major guides to sovereignty.
Back to Top
Styrbiorn View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 3608
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Feb 2012 at 22:03
Originally posted by xristar xristar wrote:

 
By being already there before the white man came and declared your land possesion of her Majesty the Queen. Read my last post again and explain what exactly you don't understand.


So only non-white men can be natives?

Quote
Greenland is not really contested territory. Also, Inuits are natives of Greenland, while the Danish settlers aren't. By reading Wiki, it seems that only the Norwegians and the Danish have laid claims, which they have solved in favor of Danemark. If Norway claimed the land again, and the international community stood aside -as is the case of the Falklands- then yes, I don't think we would care that the Danish-Greenlanders object the Norwegian rule and prefer Danish. However the majority are Inuit and seems to drive for independence. In a conflict I would support whatever the Inuit want and not the Danish or Norwegian claims.
That's off the point. You used as an argument that the low population density of the Falklands diminish the right of the inhabitants to decide of their own land. Greenland has an even lower density, so by your logic we shouldn't bother what they think. Funny you still support the Inuit despite the low population. 
And by the way, the Inuits were number 2 in south Greenland. The Scandinavians arrived and settled there first.




Quote
Also the right of self determination does not mean that the few settlers can claim the vast uninhabitted/unworked areas as their possesion.

It's exactly what it means. Just as in the case of Greenland.

Quote Compare Israel, and the Jewish settlement's legitimiztion by stating that they settled empty areas. If the extent of Arab self determination ended at the edge of their villages/fields then why should the end of Stanley village plus a few grazing fields not be the border of a British Falkand Republic?
That's why I said the Falklands is an easy case. Israel isn't.

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Feb 2012 at 22:57
I have made this point before and it seems I must make it again. The Falklands are naturally less inhabitable and less able to produce agricultural products. The Falklands are extremely windy and cold, with poor and rocky soil that isn't capable of growing much more than a little bit of grass. The broken and stony nature of the land means that even the sheep which can be farmed there are very few in number.

To compare the Falklands to a warm, fertile Mediterranean paradise is simply invalid. It's like comparing central Australia or the Kalahari to Germany.
Back to Top
Paradigm of Humanity View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Oct 2011
Location: Konstantiniyye
Status: Offline
Points: 916
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Feb 2012 at 23:10
I feel bad because of you dear last Roman emperor. 150 day closed and 160 days partially clouded here. Cry  I'm dreaming of a greenhouse in mediterranean coasts of Turkey where I can cultivate my precious plants with eternal sunshine Embarrassed
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Feb 2012 at 23:31
Originally posted by xristar xristar wrote:

Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:

Originally posted by xristar xristar wrote:

This is getting retarded.
When we speak of natives, we mean a population that lived before the islands were discovered by Europeans.

What a ridiculously euro-centric point of view. They have lived there for many generations; no one lived there before. How more native can you become?

By being already there before the white man came and declared your land possesion of her Majesty the Queen. Read my last post again and explain what exactly you don't understand.
 
There is not a single sign of any human activity before the French on the Falklands. That is it was an open land up for grabs by anyone and Britain took it before Argentina ever existed and Spain consented British sovereignty on the Islands.
 
This makes Argentina's position (as the heir to Spanish possesstions) basically irrelevant. Its just like Canada claiming those little French Islands of the coast of Newfoundland (Saint Pierre and Miquelon) because Britain ruled them once before it returned them as a result of the American war of independence.

Originally posted by xristar xristar wrote:

Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:

Quote Even worse, the islands are practically empty. They have 3,000 inhabitants most of whom live in single coastal village. I used the example of Cyprus in my last post to show how a similar sized island with a typical population density has over 1 million inhabitatns.
So what if they are empty by your standards. Should Greenland be given to Canada? Who cares what the Inuits think, they are so few anyway.

Greenland is not really contested territory. Also, Inuits are natives of Greenland, while the Danish settlers aren't. By reading Wiki, it seems that only the Norwegians and the Danish have laid claims, which they have solved in favor of Danemark. If Norway claimed the land again, and the international community stood aside -as is the case of the Falklands- then yes, I don't think we would care that the Danish-Greenlanders object the Norwegian rule and prefer Danish. However the majority are Inuit and seems to drive for independence. In a conflict I would support whatever the Inuit want and not the Danish or Norwegian claims.
 
Once you forsake a claim on a piece of land its international law. Claim it as much as you want but unless the UN or the country you are opposing acknowledge the claim you are on your own.
 
A more relevant episode is the German claim to East Pomerania and the corridor. Believe it or not it was part of the German constitution untill the unification. Only after the unification and the messages from the rest of the world that such claims (especially land claims by the Prussian aristocracy some of which lost 10s of thousands of acres of rich agricultural land) will never be recognised and the Germans obliged and amended their constitution.
 
Here Germany has a much harder case against the world since its citizens were illegally expelled and their lands illegally nationalised without due compensation and its borders illegally redrawn without consent yet it didn't benifit them. The international law recognised that these were the final borders and the Germans had to accept them.
Originally posted by xristar xristar wrote:

Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:

Quote Speaking of which, why not consider dividing the islands? If the British settles are so adamant about not having Argentine masters, then let them create their "Falklandia" with Stanley as its capital, and Argentines have their own "Malvina" province. Why should the Falklands be indivisible?
Continuing with Cyprus as an example, I presume you support giving half of it to Turkey as well, then?
Do you honestly think Argentina would settle for a part only?

Cyprus is de facto divided and even if gets reunited it will be as a confederation. I wouldn't mind giving a part to Turkey if it was proportional to the size and economic activity of the muslim population. As it happened in 1974 it was grossly disproportional and cannot be accepted. The Turks know that and every plan that has been proposed assumes concessions towards the Greek side.
 
If I am not mistaken there was never a clear division between Turkish Cyprus and Greek Cyprus. Both ethnicities were equally distributed across the Island. The current situation is a direct result of the invasion.
 
Plus invoking Cyprus here is irrelevant. Turkey never claimed Cyprus, that is until enosis was declared when they rightfully (being the former master of the Island, never officially giving up claim to it or the Diocanese) claimed it since Turkey is the legitimate inheritor of all Ottoman possessions and Greece wasn't. However Turkey didn't act on the claim and invented a puppet republic as a form of pressure to guarantee minority rights and the elimination of any future possibility of enosis while recognising defacto sovereignty of the South over the North.
 
Argentina on the other hand claimed an Island that they never ruled nor did the people the inherited their country from ever lay claim on. In fact Spain recognised legal rights of the British to the Islands and never contested them.

 
Originally posted by xristar xristar wrote:

In history and today the right of self-determination of vastly bigger populations have been trampled for reasons such as economic and military interests.
Also the right of self determination does not mean that the few settlers can claim the vast uninhabitted/unworked areas as their possesion.
Compare Israel, and the Jewish settlement's legitimiztion by stating that they settled empty areas. If the extent of Arab self determination ended at the edge of their villages/fields then why should the end of Stanley village plus a few grazing fields not be the border of a British Falkand Republic?
 
The jews never legitimised their state by claiming settling "a land without people". Thats a joke every Israeli laughs at and it was used only to convince gullible idiots in europe and especially America to support them.
 
They claimed Palestine based on psuedo-historic/nationalistic legends that played into the hands of the British who had their own goals in mind and who were actually going to make Palestine a multi-ethnic country rather than an exlusive Jewish homeland.
 
Of course the Holocaust changed everything. To solve all the problems "once and for all" the great three launched a gigantic ethnic cleansing program which depopulated entire provinces from certain ethnicities and borders were changed back and forth to accomodate for the new realities. Poles were cleansed from the Ukraine and these supplanted Germans cleansed from Pomerania and so on.
 
 
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Feb 2012 at 01:58
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:


You are correct: the natives of the Falklands are Falklanders; their ancestry is British though. And those Argentinians better get on a boat back to Europe, since they certainly aren't native to South America. Your double standards are reaching new heights.LOL


Gimme a break. It seems you guys haven't seen many Argentineans.
Half Argentinean population is more Amerindian than Squanto or Sequoyah.

On the other hand, those Malvinean settlers are allien to this part of the world.
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Feb 2012 at 02:01
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

It doesn't take military might to establish possession of a currently uninhabited piece of territory. Any sovereign nation can claim ownership of such a territory, but it has to establish a settled population and demonstrate its de facto jurisdiction.


An important point is that people of the Americas don't want Europeans fooling around here anymore.

Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Feb 2012 at 02:03
Originally posted by Styrbiorn Styrbiorn wrote:


So only non-white men can be natives?



White men are natives to Europe and some parts of Asia. That's why I laugh when an Asian or a black claims they are "Europeans"!!

Europe is the native land of the Europeans, and now they are been displaced there the same way the Native Americans were displaced in the New World. Let's hope in the future, Whites won't be kept in reserves in Europe, in order to survive Confused
Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Feb 2012 at 02:06
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

There is not a single sign of any human activity before the French on the Falklands. That is it was an open land up for grabs by anyone and Britain took it before Argentina ever existed and Spain consented British sovereignty on the Islands.
 

Of course Canadians have the right to do so. Those decandent French have NOTHING to do in the Americas. French should be contrained to theirs Francophony, centered in Africa.
Back to Top
Paradigm of Humanity View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Oct 2011
Location: Konstantiniyye
Status: Offline
Points: 916
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Feb 2012 at 02:11
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:


An important point is that people of the Americas don't want Europeans fooling around here anymore.

I would like to see what europeans would think if a Chinese navy were wandering around Bay of Biscay or even English Channel.

Edited by Paradigm of Humanity - 23 Feb 2012 at 02:13
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 5>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.108 seconds.