About the right to defend your own

I had a long discussion this weak, when the situation of the Islas Malvinas (or Falkland, like i think the English call them) jumped up again. The thing is what gives you the right to say this is my terrain and not yours and i will kill you should you try to set a foot on it? The other party always put the Constitution or some other ideal like the sense or pertenece. Personally i think that those are not real nor material so can't serve for nothing. An example on this matter is this subject of the Islas Malvinas, the british invade the islands, the people get mad because they say the islands were them and then move forces to counter-attack, but the thing is before you there was indians occupating that land and you killed them and put your people, your culture and your laws, every nation on history has made the same claiming some right over the land... but is this right?

no, in essence it is not right.
but it is natural and essential to the spread of knoledge and civilisation. the people who are stronger and smarter will enevitably destroy the weak and foolish, and in this way the people and nations of the world will get stronger and better than in there previos form. it is so in the animal kingdom and so it will be in humanity.

Please note: this smells like a Backroom topic. For now it will stay here, but it will be moved when this is going more about emotions than history.

I don't understand? Are you saying the British retaking the Falklands after the Argentinian invasion was wrong? Or that conquests in general are wrong?

I posted this here because i cannot post it on the backroom, i don't know why. And no i'm not saying that. Any conquer is morally wrong, but i wanted to know the point of view of you people in what is that gives you the right to defend a land, is it posetion or is it an idea. And i really don't know why you ask if i said that it was wrong, it was beleaved that after the WWII was over and treaties signed the wars for expansion and pure conquer will be over forever (i don't beleave it but...), the thing is that England was one of the first in signing that tretie, and them beggined the war, it's just another hipocrecy of the great nations, that always try to impose their beliefs an their politics in other military weak nations, this is the same case that the last war on Irak, Bush sais that the Irakies deserve a democratic government (ok, the real reason will be oil and justification of so massive military power) and then they go and kill thousands of people invading the soberanity of others. Now i think that the time of conquerors are over, the humanity has to be more rational, and nobody has the right to say what's better for anybody.

Soulforged, there's a reason why the Backroom isn't open right away.

Topics get quite heated there at times, such topics often are about emotions and politics. The Monastery is for history discussions only. So, I ask again: skip the morals/ethics etc in this topic.

Soulforged, I'd say that in times past there was a romantic ideal and something quite noble about the conquest of new lands. At the time, before man decided that generally we are all equal and have a right to our own freedom and rights, it was held in high regard as the most natural thing to do to conquor other lands.

Now as the world becomes more populated and people begin to understand eachother more I believe that eventually we'll coem to a point where hostility towards your fellow man will be a very disrepectful thing. Take the Iraq war, many people dislike the choice to invade: that sounds like a swing of the pendulum to the other spectrum. Likewise, Wilson's "14 Points" and "self determination" definately put into motion the ability for people to have the right to defend your own lands and own them yourselves. This is also rather complex in places like the Balkans and the Middle East where lines on a map aren't going to make people loyal to a faceless gov't, because tribal and social ties are much stronger than bureaucratic elements, even in these modern times.

People are loyal to many things, geographic regions, families, ethnicity and culture, religion, forms of gov't; these are things which both bind the world together and rend it entire. We will never completely begin to understand eachother until we stop officially dividing eachother and seeing that difference as a negative. We are all different - and that is what makes the world such an amazing place to live in.

That's what i wanted to read, but i see that i've gone to far. You're right Tosa, perhaps i did wrong on post this at all, lost objectivity here, sorry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

That's what i wanted to read, but i see that i've gone to far. You're right Tosa, perhaps i did wrong on post this at all, lost objectivity here, sorry.

---

I'm glad that we found some understanding here.

I can either close this topic now or move it to the Backroom for a more in depth discussion, you should be able to read more responses there and perhaps participate yourself soon. What do you prefer Soulforged?

No it's ok, just close it. Anyway nothing useful will come down of this.

But also i want to know: 1- Why i can't edit my posts? 2- When i try to post anything on the Tavern (reply or new thread) i'm redirected to a page that tells me: You're trying to do.... you don't have enough previleges???

That's board policy Soulforged. New members can't edit their post after submitting it, nor can they post in the Backroom.

People have different believes and opinions and that's fine. What should be avoided around here are flames though. This policy puts some halt to invasions of people who just want to argue/swear (yes, we had that). It gives others some time to adjust the act before being confronted with the more controversial topics (the world and cyberspace are normally harsh).

We also realise that it imposes some 'unfair' trial to fine people. We upgrade accounts as soon as we see that they play nice around here (this doesn't have to be bootlicking of course).