Printable View
Lets make it easier and move everyone to Africa. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by ian_of_smeg16
The Fact is the People consider themselves Britiash and want to be "occupied" by them, Britain has the power to do this. That really is the end of the matter until the situation changes.
Well put. ~:)Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadesPanther
What happened centuries ago really doesn't matter to us Brits, and thats the truth. We hold the Islands and the populace is happy with that. This is the situation at the moment and this is why the islands belong to us. I suspect that much of the international community would support us in the event of a new Argentine invasion since the principle of self-detirmination is especially popular at the moment. Semi-legal quibbles over long-defunct treaties and temporary settlements matter only to the those Argentines who see a blow to their national pride everytime they see the word Malvinas.
Im sorry but I disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
the only way the Island will stop being British is
- Either the people decide they dont want to be part of UK
- Its is taken away by force.
- The government give it away.
End of story....
I was only joking around when i said that, in fact i think exactly the same as you, if they want to be British, let them!Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadesPanther
i was just saying everybody was making a big fus about what people a couintry belongs to, when in all truth times have changed, we live in a more democratic world and people have the right to choose their government.
shouldn't the Falklanders have the right to choose whether or not they're British?
I was joking too. Shoulda put a smiley on the end of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ian_of_smeg16
There
Same here, ah well
we won the falklands, we want the falklands, we have the falklands
is there a peace treaty between Britain and Argentina after the Falkland war?Because if there is Argentina doesnt have any claims on the islands.It would be the same if Finland would start to claim back Karelian Peninsula from Russia which was lost in WWII.
To everybody: i'm not taking an arbitrary point the treaties creates real relationships and real rights that are respected in general by third parties, this things didn't existed before, so that argument that the english should give their lands back to the saxons is stupid, besides the saxons, the jotos (how do you call the others?) and the angles are all lost in the gene mixture this tribes don't exist anymore. In Argentina all precautions were taken before just wipe away the indians, like for example unite their territory with ours. They didn't accepted so Roca sent them to hell. Justified or not he created perfect right by conquest. Britain didn't. Treaties and third parties recognisements made the island ours, there's one single excuse that the british can use, the Malvinas War in 1982, though this was almost forced by britain like i prooved in my last big post. But please it appears that anybody readed the article that i posted it would show you how things should have been and the hypocresy of the british government before the principle of selfdetermination. Look: BBC link
Soulforged, all this proves is that Lord Chalfont is a sleazy scumbag willing to cut a political deal to get out of doing the right thing. You are correct that the British government was being hypocritical in doing this. The British people would not let that happen and the Falkland islanders clearly wanted to be British.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
Yes you're right, but this also prooves that the principle of free determination is not so absoloute.Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
Only for sleazy scumbag hypocrites like Lord Chalfont!Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
Wow you seem to hate really much this guy! But not, not only for him. Read the case of Mauricio in my post or in any source, the government of Britain did something like this. The government of Britain also used justified force (following the setence of the UN) in the case of the channel of Corfú, forcing the albanians to lift the mines, and in it's intervention in the territory of Oman. Again not all is black and white.Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
Well what do you expect from a Labour government?Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
The people living there.
Also i noticed that this has an error of perception. We don't want the people of Britain habitating the land we want them out, they'll stay british and we'll kept the islands. That's called a process of descolonization, and an interesting case happened not to long ago in Israel, it fits my description of disrespect to the right of selfdetermination. Though it seems to work arbitrarily is some occassions and in others not.Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
Soulforged, I am well aware that government, ALL governments are essentially (to borrow a phrase) wretched hives of scum and villainy. This does not prove Argentina's case regarding the Falklands.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
Its also called ethnic cleansing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
Since there are no Argentinians living in the Flaklands to my knowledge, they have no say into who lives there. It isn't colonialisation as there aren't any people being colonized. So that, in your perspective, means that the rocks, the grass and the earth fo the Falklands must be free of the iron boot of British colonialism? Lets face it, your arguments are battered and sinking and you are just clutching at every last glimmer of hope in a desperate attempt to prove that you're right.
No this doesn't proove it but my two big post yes, this is only to make my point concerning the false absolute caracter of the principle of selfdetermination of the people. This means that Britain could (and must) begin a process of descolonization in Malvinas doens't matter what the people think, like they did in Mauricio. We've proven best title and a protest elevated to the UN.Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
No they're not battered the arguments of the british were always battered from the begining. About the colonization, yes you colonizate a territory and the people. So the british are still colonizating it, and they must give it back. Period. Besides you didn't give me any juridic or historic argument besides of the selfdetermination, that i already refuted. So who is the one that haves to admit things?Quote:
Originally Posted by King Henry V
The first recorded, i.e the first with PROOF, landing took place in 1690 when Captain Strong landed there in 1690 and wrote that there were no know people living there. He also claims the Islands for the English Crown. In 1764, the French establish the first permanent settlement on East Falkland. A year later the Britsh establish a settlement on West Falkland. You do not even have the claim fo first settlement on the Islands. In 1767 Spain buys the French share. Three years later, a Spanish flottilla demands that the Britsh abandon West Falkland. The commander of the garrison refuses and the Spaniards sail aways. However they return with a stronger force which "persuades" the Britsh soldiers to evacuate the island. There are two views on this. Either you fully accept the right of conquest, in which case anyone who military holds the island has the right to it, or you view this as illegal, in which case, no matter what Britain still has the right ot at least one of the islands. However, a British force resumes control of West Falkland afer threatening Spain with war a year later, in 1771. In 1774, they withdraw for economic reasons, but leave a plaque behind asserting continued authority. In 1816 Argentina gains independance. Now the cornerstone of your objective is this: Argentina, as a succesor state to the Spanish Viceroyalty of the River Plate, inherits the rights of Spain over the Island. However, Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay and Bolivia were also part of the afore said Viceroyalty. Does that mean they have a claim to it too? In 1828, Argentinia sends colonists to colonize both islands. This is illegal as West Falkland is still under British sovereignty. It may be true that Britain did not protest, but since it did not have a settlement on any of the islands it would have been hard to find out without having been told by any of the whalers stopping there, and whose reports were probably not the first prority of His Brittanic Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies. In 1831 the American ship destroys the settlement on East Falkland after three ships were arrested. This most certainly reported, and the Britsh reoccupy the Islands and expel the Argentinians without any bloodshed. The Argentinian physical involvement in the Isalnds lasted only a mere five years. Since 1833 there has been a continued presence of the British on the Falklands.
When, in 1964, the situation was discussed at the U.N, where Argentina pressed its claims. These were as follows:
The Treaty of Tordesillas whereby the Pope declared that the new World to be shared between Spain and Portugal. However, Spain still exists therefore only it would have claim to only East Falkland.
Geographic location. This is a very shaky claim, nto only because Chile would also have the right ot the Falklands, but this would set a precedent fro many oither places, such as Greenland mentioned before, the Cayman Islands, the Channel Islands, Greek Islands of the coast of Asia Minor....the list goes on.
To end colonialisation. And the occupation or expulsion of people without their wish is not colonialisation?
As to the reference to Mauritius, your idea is that because Britain did some thing wrong forty years ago, they should do it agian just to suit Argentina. Incompatible language
That link only proves that the British Government likes to backstab areas where people want to be British. Northern Ireland in 1940 or Gibraltar more recently are two examples. In all cases it was rejected so at least post WWII they ask the opinions of the people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
Ok, i already refuted this position. The discovery is uncertain an irrelevant, there're many positions and the discovery alone does not create perfect right. Occupation for a given time (analized exclusively for each case), when it's pacific and stable (things that didn't happen to the british because Spain act against them interrupting the time of effective occupation) creates perfect rights, i already refuted this position from the side of the English, that occupation never existed.Quote:
Originally Posted by King Henry V
Incorrect the French retire recognising the rights of Spain over all the lands. The british assume (with no reason) that the french settlement decreases the rights of Spain over the islands and occupate an island to the South, with a poor settlement and for little time, no pacific, nor lasting, and then the spanish take over them, appling their rights over the lands. They sign a treaty in wich they persuade the british to accept a returning to the status quo after the incident, the british accept, later they abandon the island, wich is presumed like a decrease on their intend to occupate them, thus renuncing to all rights they could have created if they stayed there. It's not a case of conquer, the island were spanish, Britain presumed incorrectly that they were occuping res nullius lands.Quote:
In 1767 Spain buys the French share. Three years later, a Spanish flottilla demands that the Britsh abandon West Falkland. The commander of the garrison refuses and the Spaniards sail aways. However they return with a stronger force which "persuades" the Britsh soldiers to evacuate the island. There are two views on this. Either you fully accept the right of conquest, in which case anyone who military holds the island has the right to it, or you view this as illegal, in which case, no matter what Britain still has the right ot at least one of the islands.
The british reasume control by a treaty of restitution and reparation (but not of granting a title) with Spain, both parts accept that the treaty does not decrease the better rights of Spain over the two islands. About the "symbols" it doesn't matter the objective situations are interpreted like a lack of intend to occupate the land, the posterior lack of protest confirms it. Besides the british doctrine sais that this "symbols" are inssuficient to materialize the intend of occupation, and even less effective occupation as someones presume.Quote:
However, a British force resumes control of West Falkland afer threatening Spain with war a year later, in 1771. In 1774, they withdraw for economic reasons, but leave a plaque behind asserting continued authority.
ufff, again is not 1816, is 1810, one year lates Spain withdraws by order of the governor of Montevideo from the islands, and grants the rights to the succesor.Quote:
In 1816 Argentina gains independance.
:furious3: read my post!! Not the principle of uti possidetis accepted by the international custom sais that the jurisdictions are inherated like the antecesor leaves them, so not.Quote:
Now the cornerstone of your objective is this: Argentina, as a succesor state to the Spanish Viceroyalty of the River Plate, inherits the rights of Spain over the Island. However, Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay and Bolivia were also part of the afore said Viceroyalty. Does that mean they have a claim to it too?
Again incorrect, it's 1820, but them make acts of jurisdiction over them since 1811 until that date, and following the law that's considered as claiming of rights, confirmation and as a replace for effective occupation.Quote:
In 1828, Argentinia sends colonists to colonize both islands.
Is not illegal...illegal under what view?!!! Argentina had all the rights to them being the succesor to that jurisdiction, Britain accepted it and even signed treaties without protesting in any way!!! read the :furious3: posts.Quote:
This is illegal as West Falkland is still under British sovereignty.
No it's truth, and confirmed many times. And i did say that british protested but not officially, the consul acting here protested (Woodbine Parish) but, first he allegated false proof and rights, and second the actitude of the official government was the contrary so it's irrelevant..Quote:
It may be true that Britain did not protest, but since it did not have a settlement on any of the islands it would have been hard to find out without having been told by any of the whalers stopping there, and whose reports were probably not the first prority of His Brittanic Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies
Ok but you miss the fact that Argentina protested allegating better rights (with reason) thus keeping the conflict on, and breaking the political peace of the illegal domination of the british in the island. This protest has a caracter of undetermined lasting following the international juridic custom, so Argentina didn't need to involve in physical hostilities or protest over and over, just one formal official protest was enough.Quote:
In 1831 the American ship destroys the settlement on East Falkland after three ships were arrested. This most certainly reported, and the Britsh reoccupy the Islands and expel the Argentinians without any bloodshed. The Argentinian physical involvement in the Isalnds lasted only a mere five years. Since 1833 there has been a continued presence of the British on the Falklands.
Again this is only a metion it had no juridic effects on the period and for instance it has no relevance for the discussion. Neither of the parts allegated them, and the did not based it's conclussion over them.Quote:
When, in 1964, the situation was discussed at the U.N, where Argentina pressed its claims. These were as follows:
The Treaty of Tordesillas whereby the Pope declared that the new World to be shared between Spain and Portugal. However, Spain still exists therefore only it would have claim to only East Falkland.
The geographic location is another mention, but this does have effects because it helps to stablish better rights over the lands, always considering the other arguments.Quote:
Geographic location. This is a very shaky claim, nto only because Chile would also have the right ot the Falklands, but this would set a precedent fro many oither places, such as Greenland mentioned before, the Cayman Islands, the Channel Islands, Greek Islands of the coast of Asia Minor....the list goes on.
Yes what Britain did. And not is not colonization it's returning the land to it's rightful owner. This has been done even but Britain. But sure Britain can do it don't....ufff :dizzy2: .Quote:
To end colonialisation. And the occupation or expulsion of people without their wish is not colonialisation?
No. First Britain was about to give the lands to us as i showed it in the link in my previous post. Second this prooves only that the rights of selfdetermination of people loses terrain before the rights of national unity.Quote:
As to the reference to Mauritius, your idea is that because Britain did some thing wrong forty years ago, they should do it agian just to suit Argentina. I've seen more sense coming out of a bull's arse!
As for what i'm concerned you didn't read my previous posts. Allegated false statements and created rights where there aren't...well in short, the typical british imperial actitud. Maybe someday your country will evolve from barbarity. And maybe some day you'll present actual evidence that i didn't mention...god i even mentioned better evidence that the british could use and refuted them too. But please don't leave the disucussion let's see what more you can say. :dizzy2:
I don't think insulting a country is an appropriate way of debating an issue, however strongly felt your views.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
So, just to clarify Soulforged-
-You don't believe that the islanders have the right to self-determination.
-You think the present inhabitants of the Falklands should be deported, and the islands given to Argentina.
Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm just looking to clarify your perspective in my own head.
Soul am i sensing some nationlism ~D
Soulforged,Quote:
Originally Posted by Soulforged
There are people living on the Falklands whose family has lived on the islands for five generations. They are no longer colonialists. They are inhabitants. To force them from the islands would not be ending imperialism. It would be imperialism: forcing people from their home for territorial gain.
Who do you think has a greater claim to the Falklands? The people who have lived there for five generations, or the people whose great-great grandparents were forced out of the islands well over a century ago and who have lived in Argentina ever since?
Yes you're right. From a moral point of view i don't like the position, but it's the only one possible after all that Britain did. As the UN stated the government and the people of Britain cannot shield themselves behind the principle of selfdetermination when they were who colonizated the lands. So the principle don't applies. Besides it's not logic, you take a territory by force, don't create rights by conquest (because of what i've already stated), nor by adquisitive prescription, then you fill that territory with your own people, colonize it and deny all the rights to their rightful owners, take a position of intransicenge before the signed pacts and the better rights of the other part, make unilateral desicitions taking the higher ground that you cannot allegate, and then of course those people that colonized the lands say that they want to be british is understandable, but it's not right, those lands are part of our territory, we posses better rights, there's justificated precedents of descolonization even when there was no consulting to the wishes of the people, then for instance Britain should do what they promised to de UN in the resolutions and descolonize the lands forever, the violence must stop at some point also the states of illicitud, we wont take any hostile position any more, but Britain must recognize our best position and give bakc our lands like they did it with other lands.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax
Btw: Is not only me is the accorded by both state parts and the judge (the UN). This should have been solved by pacific means but two things occured: first the british made those unilateral decisions and took an intrasigent position on this matter, second our government by fact made another unilateral decision and send argentinians to die in those lands for internal political reasons. This has empoverish the sitution, and perhaps the matter will never be solved, but i hope that it's.
Yes that right exists, i'm not denying it, but precedents exist in favour of Britain, so it could be the same with us. As i've stated the case of the Sahara zone and the case of Mauricio is a perfect example of what i'm talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcellus