Who should have control of the Falklands?
The UK
90.8% (177)
90.8% (177)
Argentina
7.7% (15)
7.7% (15)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: The Falklands - Who should it belong to?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Blablahb:
Jingoism is extreme nationalism and a desire to conquer the world. Using it for a defensive war aimed to drive off an imperialistic bloodthirsty dictatorship that has invaded you, is wildly inapropriate.

Well, if those were the UK Government's real motivations, I'd be with you. Galtieri was a tyrant, and he fell in part due to his defeat.

But, they weren't.

the clockmaker:

vonmanstein:
malvinas argentinas

....Falklands Britannia?

I really don't know what you are adding here.

On topic, I think that the British should give the Argentines the Falklands, right after the Argentines give the mainland back to the indigenous people, the yanks give their land back to the native Americans, after they give it back to the Mexicans of course and we ensure that no one in the European Union is living on land that belonged to anybody else. Ever.

I, for one, look forward to France's Aquitaine region being rightfully returned to the Ramnulfid House of Poitiers. Or maybe the druids.

Captcha: hocus pocus

Silvanus:

Blablahb:
Jingoism is extreme nationalism and a desire to conquer the world. Using it for a defensive war aimed to drive off an imperialistic bloodthirsty dictatorship that has invaded you, is wildly inapropriate.

Well, if those were the UK Government's real motivations, I'd be with you. Galtieri was a tyrant, and he fell in part due to his defeat.

But, they weren't.

Galtieri was a military stooge, the last in a long line of military stooges trying to hold up the crumbling dictatorship. The war was a ploy to divert the nation's attention from the dictatorship's state crimes towards something far and away that had little to no consequence. Any Argentine who foolishly believes in the importance or historicity of the islands, and actively pursues their re-taking is in a way carrying on with the dictatorship's schemes.

And Galtieri deserves a rusty fork through the eye, that sinister child-snatching fuck.

vonmanstein:

the clockmaker:

vonmanstein:
malvinas argentinas

....Falklands Britannia?

I really don't know what you are adding here.

On topic, I think that the British should give the Argentines the Falklands, right after the Argentines give the mainland back to the indigenous people, the yanks give their land back to the native Americans, after they give it back to the Mexicans of course and we ensure that no one in the European Union is living on land that belonged to anybody else. Ever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gB8_IRLDYM

And a fat (I want to say....Russian) comedian to you to mate. Seriously, what in the name of... fuck it, just what?

the clockmaker:

vonmanstein:

the clockmaker:

....Falklands Britannia?

I really don't know what you are adding here.

On topic, I think that the British should give the Argentines the Falklands, right after the Argentines give the mainland back to the indigenous people, the yanks give their land back to the native Americans, after they give it back to the Mexicans of course and we ensure that no one in the European Union is living on land that belonged to anybody else. Ever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gB8_IRLDYM

And a fat (I want to say....Russian) comedian to you to mate. Seriously, what in the name of... fuck it, just what?

Cyrillic scares me. 'Tis the language of viruses.

Batou667:

Helmholtz Watson:

Also, what year is this? Is it the 1800's? No? Then I don't think that Britain has a right to claim Argentina anymore than they have a right to claim Hong Kong or India. Just because you control a place, doesn't make it justified.

Grumble grumble Gaza grumble Palestine mutter grumble insinuations grumble mutter.

The Falklands are British by self-determination, by historical justification, and more recently by military force. The only respect in which it's "not British" is distance from the UK mainland. In which case I guess the "thieving, Imperialistic" USA had better "give back" Alaska and Hawaii. Or something.

Don't worry about Palestine Israel, its well on its way to becoming a true apartheid state safe place for everyone!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/the-new-israeli-apartheid-poll-reveals-widespread-jewish-support-for-policy-of-discrimination-against-arab-minority-8223548.html

Johnny Novgorod:

Galtieri was a military stooge, the last in a long line of military stooges trying to hold up the crumbling dictatorship. The war was a ploy to divert the nation's attention from the dictatorship's state crimes towards something far and away that had little to no consequence. Any Argentine who foolishly believes in the importance or historicity of the islands, and actively pursues their re-taking is in a way carrying on with the dictatorship's schemes.

And Galtieri deserves a rusty fork through the eye, that sinister child-snatching fuck.

Absolutely agree with everything you said.

But it's very much relevant that those weren't the UK government's most important motivations.

...why don't we ask the people that live on the Falkland Islands? I'm pretty sure they all like being part of the commonwealth.

Ed130:

Batou667:

Helmholtz Watson:

Also, what year is this? Is it the 1800's? No? Then I don't think that Britain has a right to claim Argentina anymore than they have a right to claim Hong Kong or India. Just because you control a place, doesn't make it justified.

Grumble grumble Gaza grumble Palestine mutter grumble insinuations grumble mutter.

The Falklands are British by self-determination, by historical justification, and more recently by military force. The only respect in which it's "not British" is distance from the UK mainland. In which case I guess the "thieving, Imperialistic" USA had better "give back" Alaska and Hawaii. Or something.

Don't worry about Palestine Israel, its well on its way to becoming a true apartheid state safe place for everyone!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/the-new-israeli-apartheid-poll-reveals-widespread-jewish-support-for-policy-of-discrimination-against-arab-minority-8223548.html

.
I leave for two weeks and I get this?

This piece of shit article is based on a piece of shit article from the piece of shit newspaper Haaretz. Not only did Haaretz manipulate the numbers and the poll questions, but it pushed it on to other media outlets. Ignoring for a moment that this is a survey of five hundred people (which would "obviously" represent all of Israel, because, reasons), the way it's written is bullshit. The people behind it are a different breed of the left. They go in the direction of pressuring Israel from outside to change public opinion. These are the same guys that treat ultra-orthodox jews and settlers the same way a nazi would treat a Jew. I am serious.

For example, when I read this my head was about to explode:
"But such self-awareness does not mean that Israelis are ashamed of it. Nearly 70 per cent of those questioned would object to the 2.5 million Palestinians living in the West Bank obtaining the vote if Israel was to annex the Palestinian territory, suggesting that they effectively endorse an apartheid regime. Nearly 75 per cent favour separate roads there for Israelis and Palestinians - although most view such a step as "necessary," rather than "good." Although nearly 40 per cent support annexation, that remains a distant prospect for the moment."
40 percent don't support annexation! They support to annex only the Jewish settlements, not all of the territories! Only a small minority supports to annex all of the territories (small as in around one percent). This is just one of the many fucking retarded things I see here. This isn't journalism, it's slander. Only a person that already supports this would see this article and agree to it.

Then again, if you bought this article then there's no way I could convince you.

Silvanus:

Johnny Novgorod:

Galtieri was a military stooge, the last in a long line of military stooges trying to hold up the crumbling dictatorship. The war was a ploy to divert the nation's attention from the dictatorship's state crimes towards something far and away that had little to no consequence. Any Argentine who foolishly believes in the importance or historicity of the islands, and actively pursues their re-taking is in a way carrying on with the dictatorship's schemes.

And Galtieri deserves a rusty fork through the eye, that sinister child-snatching fuck.

Absolutely agree with everything you said.

But it's very much relevant that those weren't the UK government's most important motivations.

I think the governments motivation was 'If we don't respond to the invasion against British subjects, we will be fucked in the next election'.

But to be fair, the fear of tacking a kick in the polls is what motivates about 50% of what every government does.

ClockworkPenguin:

Silvanus:

Johnny Novgorod:

Galtieri was a military stooge, the last in a long line of military stooges trying to hold up the crumbling dictatorship. The war was a ploy to divert the nation's attention from the dictatorship's state crimes towards something far and away that had little to no consequence. Any Argentine who foolishly believes in the importance or historicity of the islands, and actively pursues their re-taking is in a way carrying on with the dictatorship's schemes.

And Galtieri deserves a rusty fork through the eye, that sinister child-snatching fuck.

Absolutely agree with everything you said.

But it's very much relevant that those weren't the UK government's most important motivations.

I think the governments motivation was 'If we don't respond to the invasion against British subjects, we will be fucked in the next election'.

But to be fair, the fear of tacking a kick in the polls is what motivates about 50% of what every government does.

50%?

That is lowballing it by a long shot.

Still, Argentina committed an act of war by invading the island. Letting citizens be thrown into prison camps and ignoring an invasion is going to have vast consequences beyond the next elections.

Not G. Ivingname:

ClockworkPenguin:

Silvanus:

Absolutely agree with everything you said.

But it's very much relevant that those weren't the UK government's most important motivations.

I think the governments motivation was 'If we don't respond to the invasion against British subjects, we will be fucked in the next election'.

But to be fair, the fear of tacking a kick in the polls is what motivates about 50% of what every government does.

50%

That is lowballing it by a long shot.

10% is from the platform the where voted in on, 30% come from thinktanks and lobbyists, 10% are to benefit their friends and families or give them something to retire into and then 50% is when all of that causes a public shitstorm and they have to do a u-turn. (before doing it again under the radar)

Edit; percentage of statistics pulled out of my arse: 100

I feel very sorry for Argentina, their economy has fallen apart, they are on the verge of being kicked out of the IMF for lying about their inflation rate (and locking up an economist who pointed out the inaccuracy) and the best their lunatic PM can come up with is stoking up nationalism over an island that really isn't going to help them much. The foreign minister popped over the London recently and he refused to talk to the islanders, saying Argentina had to "respect their interests but not their opinion", which seems... sinister.

Naturally geographically it makes sense for it to belong to Argentina having said that, as many of the above have said, its populated almost exclusively by British people. To that end, more importantly than each of the individual countries claim on the islands, the general consensus of the population living there want to remain a part of Britain therefore they should have the conclusive vote.

tangoprime:
...why don't we ask the people that live on the Falkland Islands? I'm pretty sure they all like being part of the commonwealth.

Wait, when did I get a clone? Did we point you at the football group yet?

The homesteader should be free to recognize whatever sovereign they see fit. Not a foreign distant power deciding it for them.

Now if we were to give Argentina the Falklands on that petty historical claim we should give Norway back the islands: Shetland, Faroe Islands, Iceland and Greenland if we are gonna base this on historical attachment. Norway have a much better claim on all those areas than Argentina have or can possibly ever have on Falklands. I am willing to say that Norway has a better claim on the Antarctic(there is an official territorial claim on 2,7 mill kmē of Antartic (FYI Norway is 385 186 kmē large with only 5 million inhabitants than Argentina have on the Falklands (only based on History, not distance to the actual area))

SveeNOR:
Now if we were to give Argentina the Falklands on that petty historical claim we should give Norway back the islands: Shetland, Faroe Islands, Iceland and Greenland if we are gonna base this on historical attachment. Norway have a much better claim on all those areas than Argentina have or can possibly ever have on Falklands. I am willing to say that Norway has a better claim on the Antarctic(there is an official territorial claim on 2,7 mill kmē of Antartic (FYI Norway is 385 186 kmē large with only 5 million inhabitants than Argentina have on the Falklands (only based on History, not distance to the actual area))

Hell, half of the continental United States was "stollen" from Mexico just in 1848. We have so many Mexicans living here now, Mexico must have their lands returned to them. Obviously, if the Falklands are going to Argentina, than everything from California to Texas must be handed over to a country with a much weaker economy and a civil war over the drug trade going on!

What's that? 100 million people don't want to be South of the border to be ruled by a far more unstable and corrupt government? Well tough #%&*, your opinion doesn't matter. I would catch up on your Spanish if I were you.

/sarcasm

Not G. Ivingname:

SveeNOR:
Now if we were to give Argentina the Falklands on that petty historical claim we should give Norway back the islands: Shetland, Faroe Islands, Iceland and Greenland if we are gonna base this on historical attachment. Norway have a much better claim on all those areas than Argentina have or can possibly ever have on Falklands. I am willing to say that Norway has a better claim on the Antarctic(there is an official territorial claim on 2,7 mill kmē of Antartic (FYI Norway is 385 186 kmē large with only 5 million inhabitants than Argentina have on the Falklands (only based on History, not distance to the actual area))

Hell, half of the continental United States was "stollen" from Mexico just in 1848. We have so many Mexicans living here now, Mexico must have their lands returned to them. Obviously, if the Falklands are going to Argentina, than everything from California to Texas must be handed over to a country with a much weaker economy and a civil war over the drug trade going on!

What's that? 100 million people don't want to be South of the border to be ruled by a far more unstable and corrupt government? Well tough #%&*, your opinion doesn't matter. I would catch up on your Spanish if I were you.

/sarcasm

Yeah totally! I mean lets completely ignore groups like the Hopi, Navajo and other various Native American tribes that would call bullshit on Mexico's claim that the land of their ancestors belongs to Mexico.

aelreth:
The homesteader should be free to recognize whatever sovereign they see fit. Not a foreign distant power deciding it for them.

is it fair for that "sovereign" to be expected to support them ?

i ask because the truth is that before the war they were going to told it was "economically non-viable" for them to expect to live there as British citizens and they would, in time, have either been forcibly relocated by the British state or one assumes they could have stayed and appealed to the new Argentinian owners of the islands for to support.

the situation has ofc changed due to history but i find the idea that people should be able to park up wherever they want and demand support from a state of their choice rather disturbing tbth.

we have a great many beautiful and remote islands in Scotland. that doesn't mean people can just choose to live on them however. "economic viability" is a major factor. in the 70s-80s all the Falklands produced was wool from sheep. well we have plenty of home grown sheep and wool and it doesn't have to undergo an 8000 mile trip to reach its supposedly "domestic" and "free" market...

Helmholtz Watson:
Yeah totally! I mean lets completely ignore groups like the Hopi, Navajo and other various Native American tribes that would call bullshit on Mexico's claim that the land of their ancestors belongs to Mexico.

Yeah, let's let bullshit mythology and ancient history determine modern politics, that's really going to work well. Now give me back New York you filthy yankee land thief person.

Sleekit:

aelreth:
The homesteader should be free to recognize whatever sovereign they see fit. Not a foreign distant power deciding it for them.

is it fair for that "sovereign" to be expected to support them ?

i ask because the truth is that before the war they were going to told it was "economically non-viable" for them to expect to live there as British citizens and they would, in time, have either been forcibly relocated by the British state or one assumes they could have stayed and appealed to the new Argentinian owners of the islands for to support.

the situation has ofc changed due to history but i find the idea that people should be able to park up wherever they want and demand support from a state of their choice rather disturbing tbth.

we have a great many beautiful and remote islands in Scotland. that doesn't mean people can just choose to live on them however. "economic viability" is a major factor. in the 70s-80s all the Falklands produced was wool from sheep. well we have plenty of home grown sheep and wool and it doesn't have to undergo an 8000 mile trip to reach its supposedly "domestic" and "free" market...

It is the UK's choice on whether to honor that protectorate. Most importantly though, if the Falkland islanders are not willing to take the first step to defend themselves, it would be wise for British not to bother with it.

Blablahb:

Helmholtz Watson:
Yeah totally! I mean lets completely ignore groups like the Hopi, Navajo and other various Native American tribes that would call bullshit on Mexico's claim that the land of their ancestors belongs to Mexico.

Yeah, let's let bullshit mythology and ancient history determine modern politics, that's really going to work well. Now give me back New York you filthy yankee land thief person.

I'm not English-Amereican, go talk to them about New York.

Helmholtz Watson:

Not G. Ivingname:

SveeNOR:
Now if we were to give Argentina the Falklands on that petty historical claim we should give Norway back the islands: Shetland, Faroe Islands, Iceland and Greenland if we are gonna base this on historical attachment. Norway have a much better claim on all those areas than Argentina have or can possibly ever have on Falklands. I am willing to say that Norway has a better claim on the Antarctic(there is an official territorial claim on 2,7 mill kmē of Antartic (FYI Norway is 385 186 kmē large with only 5 million inhabitants than Argentina have on the Falklands (only based on History, not distance to the actual area))

Hell, half of the continental United States was "stollen" from Mexico just in 1848. We have so many Mexicans living here now, Mexico must have their lands returned to them. Obviously, if the Falklands are going to Argentina, than everything from California to Texas must be handed over to a country with a much weaker economy and a civil war over the drug trade going on!

What's that? 100 million people don't want to be South of the border to be ruled by a far more unstable and corrupt government? Well tough #%&*, your opinion doesn't matter. I would catch up on your Spanish if I were you.

/sarcasm

Yeah totally! I mean lets completely ignore groups like the Hopi, Navajo and other various Native American tribes that would call bullshit on Mexico's claim that the land of their ancestors belongs to Mexico.

D:

How could I be so insensitive! We need to ship all the Mexicans BACK TO SPAIN!

Not G. Ivingname:
How could I be so insensitive! We need to ship all the Mexicans BACK TO SPAIN!

How dare you sir!

We need to ship all the Mexicans (and Argentinians for that matter, who are more ethnically Spanish than Mexicans are) back to Italy and southern France. The neolithic Iberians had no right to settle that land.

In fact, fuck it.. let's just move the entire human race back to East Africa. That way, everyone will be where they belong, we can stop all these stupid debates for good and maybe people will finally realize how fucking insignificant their territorial nationalism is in the grand scheme of things.

evilthecat:

Not G. Ivingname:
How could I be so insensitive! We need to ship all the Mexicans BACK TO SPAIN!

How dare you sir!

We need to ship all the Mexicans (and Argentinians for that matter, how are more ethnically Spanish than Mexicans are) back to Italy and southern France. The neolithic Iberians had no right to settle that land.

In fact, fuck it.. let's just move the entire human race back to East Africa. That way, everyone will be where they belong, we can stop all these stupid debates for good and maybe people will finally realize how fucking insignificant their territorial nationalism is in the grand scheme of things.

Awww come on! Such a blatantly unfair straw-man! Clearly, you cannot compare this with other claims that are so awfully different in their argumentation and are in no way based on the same faulty reasoning that makes yours a straw-man! I mean where would we be if we couldn't just make up stuff to rationalize our national self-interest?

As for the Falklands...

Agema:

The most major settlement you are talking about was set up as an independent commercial venture by a German using a mixed nationality population (plenty of them British), who had permission from both the British and Argentinian governments: in fact both the British and Argentines thought he was operating under their jurisdiction.

So please, Brits and Argentinos, get out of our back-yard. We have plans for a new Autobahn there.

If they want to be British let them, if they want to be Argentinean let them, and if they want to start their own country it's their right to do it as well. If Argentina handle it better than they may have had a small chance to get those islands, but not they never will. I don't know why people even try to bother with the Island, you can't just force people to accept it like that.

Not G. Ivingname:

D:

How could I be so insensitive! We need to ship all the Mexicans BACK TO SPAIN!

Why would you ship people indigenous to Mexico back to Spain?

Although, who the Hell does Israel belong to?

The Jews and Samaritans.

Helmholtz Watson:

Not G. Ivingname:

D:

How could I be so insensitive! We need to ship all the Mexicans BACK TO SPAIN!

Why would you ship people indigenous to Mexico back to Spain?

Although, who the Hell does Israel belong to?

The Jews and Samaritans.

It is pointing out the folly of displacing people from their land to give it back to people who
A-were not alive when it was 'stolen' and
B-Have no need to leave their home.

Obviously every human being alive needs to be shipped back to Africa because that's where we belong.

the clockmaker:

Helmholtz Watson:

Not G. Ivingname:

D:

How could I be so insensitive! We need to ship all the Mexicans BACK TO SPAIN!

Why would you ship people indigenous to Mexico back to Spain?

Although, who the Hell does Israel belong to?

The Jews and Samaritans.

It is pointing out the folly of displacing people from their land to give it back to people who
A-were not alive when it was 'stolen' and
B-Have no need to leave their home.

No, its just a snide comment and a strawman, nothing more.

Helmholtz Watson:

the clockmaker:

Helmholtz Watson:
Why would you ship people indigenous to Mexico back to Spain?

The Jews and Samaritans.

It is pointing out the folly of displacing people from their land to give it back to people who
A-were not alive when it was 'stolen' and
B-Have no need to leave their home.

No, its just a snide comment and a strawman, nothing more.

It fits quite well thank you, why do the Argentinians have more claim to the Falklands than the descendants of the Native central Americans do to mexico.

It is pointing out the folly in basing borders on old territorial claims.

the clockmaker:

It fits quite well thank you, why do the Argentinians have more claim to the Falklands than the descendants of the Native central Americans do to mexico.

It is pointing out the folly in basing borders on old territorial claims.

Oh so your not referring to the Israel comment? Well then I take back calling the post snide.

I never said that Argentinians have more claim to the Falkland than the native people of Mexico.

Helmholtz Watson:
The Jews and Samaritans.

And the Palestinians.

After all, we know perfectly well that the territory Israel currently fills was not entirely depopulated. For a start, we know that plenty of the inhabitants around 70AD were not Jewish. We can also be pretty sure the Romans simply would not have the logistical capability to find and expel all the Jews anyway - they probably just kicked the majority of them out of major cities so they couldn't easily concentrate to cause trouble.

That given, it is sheer implausibility that anything else evacuated or slaughtered those remaining people, not least because no historical records attest to any such events, for all the odd sacking of Jerusalem or Acre. New people certainly moved in (chiefly, we would suspect, Arabs), who like in all other migrations, interbred with the locals. Over time, those descendants of the ancient inhabitants largely started believing in Islam and speaking Arabic. But descendants of the ancient inhabitants they almost certainly are, thus having a claim as equal by historical precedent (and stronger by being continuously present).

This is why certain revisionist historians have tried to make out implausible arguments that the Palestinians all migrated in from the surrounding areas around 1900. Because an ancestral homeland argument doesn't work when it's just as equally the ancestral homeland of the people being evicted.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked