Page 4 of 47 FirstFirst ...
2
3
4
5
6
14
... LastLast
  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by Vellerix View Post
    If we're going into that, then America is rightfully the Native's land. Sorry but it doesn't work like that.
    But America is rightfully land of the natives, they just have nothing to claim it with. How the thing is wrong though is that those islands didn't have natives until British settlements.

  2. #62
    Argentina you have no rightful claim to the land if you wish to try again

    We have a handful of typhoon fighter jets on the falklands that will turn your obsolete airforce into dust
    We have nuclear submarines armed with tomahawk cruise missiles that can hit any target in Argentina with pin point accuracy
    We have new destroyers that can hit your pathetic french made exocets out of the sky

    So please give us an excuse even though like i said i would rather we be friends

    *Edit i suggest you do it quick before we get our new aircraft carriers and the new F-35 Lightening cause when we get those babies you dont stand a fucking chance!
    Last edited by Brummiehorde; 2013-01-04 at 10:41 AM.

  3. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by Cybran View Post
    Didn't Britain exploit a shit ton of resources in the Middle east, India and Africa before the revolutions there? Britain claimed those lands just because they could.
    Because Argentina couldn't. And because since 1947 wars of aggression has been illegal under international law. Different centuries, different rules.

    I don't see why Argentina shouldn't be able to take control of them like Egypt did with the Suez canal.
    The Suez Canal was in Egypt and was owned by an Egyptian company that the government of Egypt nationalised. The Falklands are part of British territory. Argentina has no jurisdiction whatsoever.

  4. #64
    Legendary! Sigma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    England, Earth, Sol Star System, Milkyway Galaxy
    Posts
    6,380
    President of Argentina is simply saber rattling to draw attention away from its economic problems.

    The Falkland isle, untill they have had the referendum will remain A British isle, it is down to the people to choose.

  5. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by Cybran View Post
    I don't see why Argentina shouldn't be able to take control of them like Egypt did with the Suez canal.
    Mainly because were a Nuclear power with a Sub already in the area and have a vastly superior military (even after the cuts). Coupled with the fact that the UK went to war over these islands in 1982 when there was no 'Oil' in the equation.... All Argentina can do is Saber rattle and QQ to the UN to distract from their own internal problems.

    The local population should decide who they wish to be affiliated too.

    Also Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner is clearly a name with no Spanish colonial origins and is surely from one of the indigenous peoples of Argentina.....

  6. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    Well spoken like someone who don't have a clue about international law.
    Ah yes, and who writes international law?

    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    Britain's claim to these islands are based on continuous historical ownership since it's discovery as terra nullis. It is rock solid.
    Of course, according to Britain.

    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    Where's your Argentinian claim?
    The Argentinian claim comes from a precedent set in the 20th century, where empires have been dismantled, and land and resources that used to belong to empires came under control of people living there. Not just Argentina, but pretty much everyone in South America would like the islands to be part of some nation in South America, because that's where they are. The islands remaining part of Britain is a relic of the British Empire.

    It just so happens that the islands did not have indigenous inhabitants, but instead have 2,841 people who came from Britain. That's a whopping 0.26 Brits per square kilometer of the land, and much much less per square kilometer of the sea.

    It's much like Britain keeping a naval base right next to Argentina in the south Pacific; except it's not a naval base, but a bunch of civilians that are useful as an excuse to keep economic rights over everything that's there.

    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    Title to the land (and all its resources) goes to the state with the best claim.
    Hah! In this case, it goes to the state with the better navy. That's Britain.

    I don't care who these islands belong to. I'm just pointing out that the reason commonly stated for them being British - that the islanders vote for remaining in Britain - is naive and extremely tenuous.

    Of course the handful of British people, that the British put there, are going to vote to remain part of Britain. LoL!
    Last edited by Elodeon; 2013-01-04 at 10:45 AM.

  7. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by Elodeon View Post
    Ah yes, and who writes international law?
    Irrelevant.

    Of course, according to Britain.
    I notice you have zero counterargument.

    The Argentinian claim comes from a precedent set in the 20th century, where empires have been dismantled, and land and resources that used to belong to empires came under control of people living there.
    This is utterly ridiculous. Argentinians didn't live in Falklands. The Falklands were part of the British Empire and remains a British Overseas Territory. Argentina was part of the Spanish Empire. This has got to be the most intellectually bankrupt and dishonest sorry excuse for a land claim that I've ever heard.

    Hah! In this case, it goes to the state with the better navy. That's Britain.
    Doesn't change the fact that your Argentinian claim is a load of hogwash with no legitimate legal or historical basis. You don't get to write your own version of international law to suit your own needs.

  8. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by mludd View Post
    The main island, where most of the population resides, is approximately 40 km from the Swedish mainland and approximately 70 km from the Finnish mainland and on top of this most of the population speak Swedish and a lot of them identify themselves as Swedish.
    Well fine, let them be part of Sweden then. Why do I care? Does anyone care?

    If anyone cared, I should have heard about a war over Aland, or something.

  9. #69
    I am Murloc! Hyve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    5,384
    Quote Originally Posted by Elodeon View Post
    <snip>
    So let me guess this straight. Argentina launches a war on the British by attacking the Falklands, looses and now we should let them have it? They tested our claim to the Falkands and failed the test. The spoils go to the victor.

  10. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by Elodeon View Post
    Well fine, let them be part of Sweden then. Why do I care? Does anyone care?

    If anyone cared, I should have heard about a war over Aland, or something.
    Unlike you, the rest of the civilised world is able to abide by the law of nations. You know, instead of whining about people not bending over backwards to accommodate your unreasonable excuses for land grabs.

  11. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    Argentinians didn't live in Falklands.
    No one lives in the Falklands. There's a token population of 2,841. If there were 2,841,000, I would argue to let them decide.

    But there isn't.

    The argument here is, what population is significant enough to make a claim.

    Would you still maintain that who lives in the Falklands is significant, if the population was a single person stationed there?

    Would you still argue that the Falkland islands are British, if there was literally no person at all living there?

    If you would, then why don't we see arguments based on that, instead of stupid claims about the right to self-determination, when the population is a measly 2,841, in an area half the size of Vermont?

  12. #72
    Dreadlord mludd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by Elodeon View Post
    Ah yes, and who writes international law?
    Are you implying that Britain was the only country which wrote all international laws?


    The Argentinian claim comes from a precedent set in the 20th century, where empires have been dismantled, and land and resources that used to belong to empires came under control of people living there. Not just Argentina, but pretty much everyone in South America would like the islands to be part of some nation in South America, because that's where they are. The islands remaining part of Britain is a relic of the British Empire.
    Those colonies are all places where there was an existing indigenous population. Plenty of islands around the world are still held by whatever country happened to settle them.

    It just so happens that the islands did not have indigenous inhabitants, but instead have 2,841 people who came from Britain. That's a whopping 0.26 Brits per square kilometer of the land, and much much less per square kilometer of the sea.
    So does that mean Norway should be allowed to invade Swedish Lappland because the population density there is low? (Not counting the towns of Kiruna, Gällivare, Jokkmokk and Arjeplog the population density is approximately 0.58 inhabitans per km^2)
    I am the Kwisatz Haderach

  13. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by Elodeon View Post
    No one lives in the Falklands. There's a token population of 2,841. If there were 2,841,000, I would argue to let them decide.

    But there isn't.

    The argument here is, what population is significant enough to make a claim.

    Would you still maintain that who lives in the Falklands is significant, if the population was a single person stationed there?

    Would you still argue that the Falkland islands are British, if there was literally no person at all living there?

    If you would, then why don't we see arguments based on that, instead of stupid claims about the right to self-determination, when the population is a measly 2,841?
    I agree we need to toss those islanders into the ocean and give the lands to a corrupt foreign government that has no reasonable claims to the land

  14. #74
    I am Murloc! Hyve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    5,384
    Quote Originally Posted by Elodeon View Post
    Would you still argue that the Falkland islands are British, if there was literally no person at all living there?
    Yes, because for the 734,927,294th time, we won a bloody war over that island...

  15. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by Elodeon View Post
    No one lives in the Falklands. There's a token population of 2,841.
    Irrelevant. It's still not Argentinian territory, and your pitiful failure at putting forward a claim base on "people who live there" has utterly no merit whatsoever because Argentinians still didn't live there.

    Also it takes extraordinary selective blindness to equate "2,841" to "0" when your whole argument depends upon "people who live there".

  16. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by Elodeon View Post
    No one lives in the Falklands. There's a token population of 2,841. If there were 2,841,000, I would argue to let them decide.

    But there isn't.

    The argument here is, what population is significant enough to make a claim.

    Would you still maintain that who lives in the Falklands is significant, if the population was a single person stationed there?

    Would you still argue that the Falkland islands are British, if there was literally no person at all living there?

    If you would, then why don't we see arguments based on that, instead of stupid claims about the right to self-determination, when the population is a measly 2,841, in an area half the size of Vermont?
    "Token" population? As in, you mean they live there solely to justify the British claims to the islands? Or do I misunderstand?

  17. #77
    Legendary! Cybran's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Pripyat marshes
    Posts
    6,422
    Quote Originally Posted by Elodeon View Post
    Because they tried, and they're weak, and they can't, and now they'll have to look on as Britain prepares to extract that oil, right in front of them.
    Britain crushed the Egyptians as well. This is what they used to do, kill the people who want independence. Haven't any of you seen Brave heart? Falklands, Northern Ireland and Scotland should be able to break free like India did.

  18. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by mludd View Post
    So does that mean Norway should be allowed to invade Swedish Lappland because the population density there is low? (Not counting the towns of Kiruna, Gällivare, Jokkmokk and Arjeplog the population density is approximately 0.58 inhabitans per km^2)
    Not to mention his ridiculous hypocrisy in setting an arbitrary standard for "low population" to justify a naked land grab. How about we define 41,769,730 as "no one" and call upon the United States to invade and take over Argentina? By Elodeon's logic there's no one there because it's just a token population of Argentinians, so we can just kick every one out of their homes and settle it down as the 51st State of the Union.

  19. #79
    I am Murloc! Hyve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    5,384
    Quote Originally Posted by Cybran View Post
    Britain crushed the Egyptians as well. This is what they used to do, kill the people who want independence. Haven't any of you seen Brave heart? Falklands, Northern Ireland and Scotland should be able to break free like India did.
    Ahahaha. Seriously, you're funny!

  20. #80
    Quote Originally Posted by Cybran View Post
    Britain crushed the Egyptians as well. This is what they used to do, kill the people who want independence. Haven't any of you seen Brave heart? Falklands, Northern Ireland and Scotland should be able to break free like India did.
    Please pick up a history book before commenting

    Brave heart? You credibility sank from there

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •