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
 

Gergar12:
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.

I'll put it this way, they don't want to make their own country because there's another country right next door they don't want to be a part of but wants them to be a part of.

Being British promises them protection from any Argentinean interests. The Brits gave the Argentineans a bloody nose before defending their interests there so it's unlikely they'll let they have a second crack at it unopposed.

As to the OP's question: the inhabitants want to be British so the islands should remain British. Unless we live in a world where the displacement of a population that has inhabited an area for nearly 200 years is an acceptable thing.

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

North America for Eagles! Asia for Pandas! South America for Capybaras! (I think?) Europe for... grapes? Eucalyptus trees?

On second thought, I don't like this plan very much.

The Argentinean government actually doesn't even recognize the inhabitants of the islands as anything other than occupiers, despite the fact that they've been living there for 200 years. Which is completely absurd, of course.

The big problem is that the British continue to even give the Argentinean government the time of day on this. Seriously, it's so blatantly a bloody flag issue that the Kirchner regime drags up every now and then to distract attention from their mismanagement of the Argentinean government that it should be obvious. Just say, "We'll let the Falklanders decide, and that's that."

Agema:

And the Palestinians.

*looks at a current map* Doesn't seem that way. While they can become citizens, I don't see Palestinians taking places like East-Jerusalem from the Jews.

Seanchaidh:
North America for Eagles! Asia for Pandas! South America for Capybaras! (I think?) Europe for... grapes? Eucalyptus trees?

On second thought, I don't like this plan very much.

Well, yeah. You're a human being, of course are you going to be biased.

In fact, we should take all life back to the oceans. Including the life that can't survive there; it all belongs underwater.

Skeleon:

Seanchaidh:
North America for Eagles! Asia for Pandas! South America for Capybaras! (I think?) Europe for... grapes? Eucalyptus trees?

On second thought, I don't like this plan very much.

Well, yeah. You're a human being, of course are you going to be biased.

In fact, we should take all life back to the oceans. Including the life that can't survive there; it all belongs underwater.

And all the water on the surface and in the atmosphere needs to go back under the crust. And for that matter, the earth needs to return to being an amorphous blob of collapsing gas in space. Nothing other than the original condition will do.

Agema:

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.

Go ahead, try and find whoever should own Alsace-Lorraine.
I dare you.

You can't do silly things like that to determine ownership. That way the USA should have propped up separate native countries within its current territory all around the place.... and don't get me started on the Russians.

That applies to both of you.

Helmholtz Watson:
*looks at a current map* Doesn't seem that way. While they can become citizens, I don't see Palestinians taking places like East-Jerusalem from the Jews.

Right, so now you're arguing that land ownership should be determined by might makes right rather than obscure ancestral ownership?

Can we just take it you have no logical or consistent belief for why various states or peoples should control bits of land, and just make up whatever suits your preconceptions individually?

Glasgow:

You can't do silly things like that to determine ownership. That way the USA should have propped up separate native countries within its current territory all around the place.... and don't get me started on the Russians.

That applies to both of you.

As you evidently neither realise the point I'm trying to make nor know what I believe are the principal factors for who should own what, I suggest you don't waste your time correcting non-existent issues.

Agema:

Right, so now you're arguing that land ownership should be determined by might makes right rather than obscure ancestral ownership?

No, I'm just making an observation of how things currently are, nothing more.

Agema:

As you evidently neither realise the point I'm trying to make nor know what I believe are the principal factors for who should own what, I suggest you don't waste your time correcting non-existent issues.

So then clarify, because I don't get what your point is exactly.

Were there other groups of people that also lived in the besides Jews during the time of the Roman Empire? Yeah, I don't think I've ever made the claim that the entire area was homogenous and Jewish. Did other people move in when the Romans forced the Jews into exile? Again, yes, I don't think I've ever claimed otherwise. What I have claimed is that Israel is a Jewish country that was established based on the historical presence of Jews in the area and the fact that that is the one place in the world where Jews are indigenous. This doesn't mean that Palestinians don't deserve a country of their own, just that Jews also deserve a country.

Helmholtz Watson:

Agema:

Right, so now you're arguing that land ownership should be determined by might makes right rather than obscure ancestral ownership?

No, I'm just making an observation of how things currently are, nothing more.

Agema:

As you evidently neither realise the point I'm trying to make nor know what I believe are the principal factors for who should own what, I suggest you don't waste your time correcting non-existent issues.

So then clarify, because I don't get what your point is exactly.

Were there other groups of people that also lived in the besides Jews during the time of the Roman Empire? Yeah, I don't think I've ever made the claim that the entire area was homogenous and Jewish. Did other people move in when the Romans forced the Jews into exile? Again, yes, I don't think I've ever claimed otherwise. What I have claimed is that Israel is a Jewish country that was established based on the historical presence of Jews in the area and the fact that that is the one place in the world where Jews are indigenous. This doesn't mean that Palestinians don't deserve a country of their own, just that Jews also deserve a country.

I really don't want to return to the steppe where my Hungarian ancestors came from. It's full of Chechen Muslims now. Oh, Around one tenth of Ashkenazi Jews can trace their ancestry to the Khazar homeland. Does that mean that they should return to the Caucus instead of Palestine? Same goes with a chunck of Yemeni Jews and Ethiopian Jews.

Listen man, you can't play this game. I get it that the zionists revived the history of the Jews etc. etc. so now instead of being what they were in the diaspora they have their own country, but you can't run on this kind of logic.

[quote="Helmholtz Watson" post="528.400267.16528293"What I have claimed is that Israel is... the one place in the world where Jews are indigenous.[/quote]

Except that they're not really indigenous to Israel, are they? Well, lots of them could feasibly make some sort of claim now. But when in the 1940s nearly 100 generations worth of 99% of Jews had never been born in or even visited the Holy Land, the term "indigenous" is pretty laughable.

Never mind that, but if you really want to start making that case, let's remember that the ancient Hebrews migrated there in the first place (from Mesopotamia?) - it says so in Genesis. And there were locals there they had to subjugate when they finally stopped there after the little soujourn in Egypt. Actually we can dial it back even further to Turkey, I figure, given Noah's Ark landed on Mount Ararat; let's presume the flood wiped the slate clean of all prior land claims.

Glasgow:

I really don't want to return to the steppe where my Hungarian ancestors came from. It's full of Chechen Muslims now.

Um..ok? I'm not suggesting that everybody should be forced to move back to their ancestral homeland, I'm saying that Jews should be allowed to live in their ancestral home land if they want. If the Jewish diaspora doesn't want to live in Israel, I don't have a problem with that. I'm just saying it should be an option for them if they so choose.

Glasgow:
Oh, Around one tenth of Ashkenazi Jews can trace their ancestry to the Khazar homeland. Does that mean that they should return to the Caucus instead of Palestine?

Care to back up that percentage? While I'm aware that a number of Khazar were abosrbed, outside of communities advocating for the dismantement of Israel[1] I haven't really seen anybody mention it.

Glasgow:
Same goes with a chunck of Yemeni Jews and Ethiopian Jews

You and I seem to be talking about two different groups, I'm referring to Jews-the ethnic group, while you seem to be referring to Jews-practitioners of Judaism. The two are not the same thing.

Glasgow:

Listen man, you can't play this game. I get it that the zionists revived the history of the Jews etc. etc. so now instead of being what they were in the diaspora they have their own country, but you can't run on this kind of logic.

Run what kind of logic? All I'm saying is that we should have a country that traces back to our ancestors, that's it. You make it sound like I'm advocating for Israel to absorb the entire Middle East, which I'm not.

Agema:

Except that they're not really indigenous to Israel, are they? Well, lots of them could feasibly make some sort of claim now. But when in the 1940s nearly 100 generations worth of 99% of Jews had never been born in or even visited the Holy Land, the term "indigenous" is pretty laughable.

No, they are indigenous in the same way that only Native Americans are indigenous to the US. The fact that English settlers came there over two hundred years ago, doesn't mean that modern day English Americans are indigenous to the US.

Agema:

Never mind that, but if you really want to start making that case, let's remember that the ancient Hebrews migrated there in the first place (from Mesopotamia?) - it says so in Genesis. And there were locals there they had to subjugate when they finally stopped there after the little soujourn in Egypt. Actually we can dial it back even further to Turkey, I figure, given Noah's Ark landed on Mount Ararat; let's presume the flood wiped the slate clean of all prior land claims.

You can presume all you like, but I won't indulge in such things. As for other people being there when the Hebrews came, I already acknowledged that the place wasn't homogeneously Jewish prior to the exile that the Romans enforced. You seem to want to counter a claim that I never made.

[1] I'm not accusing you of belonging to such a community, I'm just telling you what my personal experience has been so far

Helmholtz Watson:
Run what kind of logic? All I'm saying is that we should have a country that traces back to our ancestors, that's it. You make it sound like I'm advocating for Israel to absorb the entire Middle East, which I'm not.

To try and drag this thread back to the original topic, the Argentines already have that: Argentina.

DJjaffacake:

Helmholtz Watson:
Run what kind of logic? All I'm saying is that we should have a country that traces back to our ancestors, that's it. You make it sound like I'm advocating for Israel to absorb the entire Middle East, which I'm not.

To try and drag this thread back to the original topic, the Argentines already have that: Argentina.

I did talk about the OP, it was a different user that brought up Israeli-Palestinian issues when I never even hinted on the subject.

I was going to post the picture of HMS Conqueror flying the Jolly Roger as a reason why Britain holds the islands but I felt ashamed when I realized its a bit offensive. (for those that don't know RN subs fly the Jolly Roger after returning from a combat deployment)

I am not that nationalistic really, I think the war was a terrible waste of lives. It taught our Navy some valuable lessons though, even if it took two decades to put some of it into practical use. Personally I have massive respect and admiration for the Argentinian troops, the pilots for example where incredibly skilled and brave and performed efficiently with limited equipment. Using planes that the rest of the world had relegated to training aircraft they gave the task force a good kicking and made the campaign tighter than many people believe.

Whatever the sovereignty of the islands I hope there isn't another war, more deaths and misery will never solve it.

DJjaffacake:

Helmholtz Watson:
Run what kind of logic? All I'm saying is that we should have a country that traces back to our ancestors, that's it. You make it sound like I'm advocating for Israel to absorb the entire Middle East, which I'm not.

To try and drag this thread back to the original topic, the Argentines already have that: Argentina.

If you want, I can start with La Plata talk and them absorbing Uruguay, Paraguay and a bit of Bolivia. Maybe we'll even have a war between Brazil and Argentina for Banda Oriental.

Helmholtz Watson:

Glasgow:

I really don't want to return to the steppe where my Hungarian ancestors came from. It's full of Chechen Muslims now.

Um..ok? I'm not suggesting that everybody should be forced to move back to their ancestral homeland, I'm saying that Jews should be allowed to live in their ancestral home land if they want. If the Jewish diaspora doesn't want to live in Israel, I don't have a problem with that. I'm just saying it should be an option for them if they so choose.

Glasgow:
Oh, Around one tenth of Ashkenazi Jews can trace their ancestry to the Khazar homeland. Does that mean that they should return to the Caucus instead of Palestine?

Care to back up that percentage? While I'm aware that a number of Khazar were abosrbed, outside of communities advocating for the dismantement of Israel[1] I haven't really seen anybody mention it.

Glasgow:
Same goes with a chunck of Yemeni Jews and Ethiopian Jews

You and I seem to be talking about two different groups, I'm referring to Jews-the ethnic group, while you seem to be referring to Jews-practitioners of Judaism. The two are not the same thing.

Glasgow:

Listen man, you can't play this game. I get it that the zionists revived the history of the Jews etc. etc. so now instead of being what they were in the diaspora they have their own country, but you can't run on this kind of logic.

Run what kind of logic? All I'm saying is that we should have a country that traces back to our ancestors, that's it. You make it sound like I'm advocating for Israel to absorb the entire Middle East, which I'm not.

Agema:

Except that they're not really indigenous to Israel, are they? Well, lots of them could feasibly make some sort of claim now. But when in the 1940s nearly 100 generations worth of 99% of Jews had never been born in or even visited the Holy Land, the term "indigenous" is pretty laughable.

No, they are indigenous in the same way that only Native Americans are indigenous to the US. The fact that English settlers came there over two hundred years ago, doesn't mean that modern day English Americans are indigenous to the US.

Agema:

Never mind that, but if you really want to start making that case, let's remember that the ancient Hebrews migrated there in the first place (from Mesopotamia?) - it says so in Genesis. And there were locals there they had to subjugate when they finally stopped there after the little soujourn in Egypt. Actually we can dial it back even further to Turkey, I figure, given Noah's Ark landed on Mount Ararat; let's presume the flood wiped the slate clean of all prior land claims.

You can presume all you like, but I won't indulge in such things. As for other people being there when the Hebrews came, I already acknowledged that the place wasn't homogeneously Jewish prior to the exile that the Romans enforced. You seem to want to counter a claim that I never made.

There is a major difference between "Jews should be allowed to live in their ancestral home land if they want" and actually having a sovereign state like Israel. There's a difference between the British mandate allowing Zionist Jews to immigrate for their 'national homeland' (and building new settlements) and between actually forming a state. The nature of the struggle and the mixing of the two populations lead to some very nasty outcomes at the end of 1949.

I read about a genetics research which could trace Khazar origins to around one tenth of tested subjects (who were Ashkenazi Jews).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1274378/
"In our sample, this low-level gene flow may be reflected in the Eu 19 chromosomes, which are found at elevated frequency (12.7%) in Ashkenazi Jews and which are very frequent in Eastern Europeans (54%-60%; Semino et al. 2000). Alternatively, it is attractive to hypothesize that Ashkenazim with Eu 19 chromosomes represent descendents of the Khazars, originally a Turkic tribe from Central Asia, who settled in southern Russia and eastern Ukraine and converted en masse to Judaism in the ninth century of the present era, as described by Yehuda Ha-Levi in 1140 a.d. "

[1] I'm not accusing you of belonging to such a community, I'm just telling you what my personal experience has been so far

Glasgow:

There is a major difference between "Jews should be allowed to live in their ancestral home land if they want" and actually having a sovereign state like Israel. There's a difference between the British mandate allowing Zionist Jews to immigrate for their 'national homeland' (and building new settlements) and between actually forming a state. The nature of the struggle and the mixing of the two populations lead to some very nasty outcomes at the end of 1949.

Fair enough, I should have clarified that I was referring to Jews have a sovereign state based on their ancestral home land.

Glasgow:

I read about a genetics research which could trace Khazar origins to around one tenth of tested subjects (who were Ashkenazi Jews).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1274378/
"In our sample, this low-level gene flow may be reflected in the Eu 19 chromosomes, which are found at elevated frequency (12.7%) in Ashkenazi Jews and which are very frequent in Eastern Europeans (54%-60%; Semino et al. 2000). Alternatively, it is attractive to hypothesize that Ashkenazim with Eu 19 chromosomes represent descendents of the Khazars, originally a Turkic tribe from Central Asia, who settled in southern Russia and eastern Ukraine and converted en masse to Judaism in the ninth century of the present era, as described by Yehuda Ha-Levi in 1140 a.d. "

Thanks! I appreciate it and I'll be sure to take a look at it.

Helmholtz Watson:

Glasgow:

There is a major difference between "Jews should be allowed to live in their ancestral home land if they want" and actually having a sovereign state like Israel. There's a difference between the British mandate allowing Zionist Jews to immigrate for their 'national homeland' (and building new settlements) and between actually forming a state. The nature of the struggle and the mixing of the two populations lead to some very nasty outcomes at the end of 1949.

Fair enough, I should have clarified that I was referring to Jews have a sovereign state based on their ancestral home land.

Glasgow:

I read about a genetics research which could trace Khazar origins to around one tenth of tested subjects (who were Ashkenazi Jews).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1274378/
"In our sample, this low-level gene flow may be reflected in the Eu 19 chromosomes, which are found at elevated frequency (12.7%) in Ashkenazi Jews and which are very frequent in Eastern Europeans (54%-60%; Semino et al. 2000). Alternatively, it is attractive to hypothesize that Ashkenazim with Eu 19 chromosomes represent descendents of the Khazars, originally a Turkic tribe from Central Asia, who settled in southern Russia and eastern Ukraine and converted en masse to Judaism in the ninth century of the present era, as described by Yehuda Ha-Levi in 1140 a.d. "

Thanks! I appreciate it and I'll be sure to take a look at it.

But the current state is home to all Jews (of the religious kind) not only of the ethnic kind... which means your argument fails.

We're going OT.

Glasgow:

But the current state is home to all Jews (of the religious kind) not only of the ethnic kind... which means your argument fails.

Not really, I was talking about why there such a country should be created, not how they should manage their current immigration policy.

Glasgow:

We're going OT.

Yes we are, shall be both say our final words on the subject?

Seanchaidh:
And all the water on the surface and in the atmosphere needs to go back under the crust. And for that matter, the earth needs to return to being an amorphous blob of collapsing gas in space. Nothing other than the original condition will do.

Really, it's not proper until all matter is turned back into hydrogen. All that "forging of the elements in the centers of stars" was a misstep from the start.

Skeleon:

Seanchaidh:
And all the water on the surface and in the atmosphere needs to go back under the crust. And for that matter, the earth needs to return to being an amorphous blob of collapsing gas in space. Nothing other than the original condition will do.

Really, it's not proper until all matter is turned back into hydrogen. All that "forging of the elements in the centers of stars" was a misstep from the start.

"In the beginning, the Universe was created. This has made many people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." -Douglas Adams

:)

Helmholtz Watson:

DJjaffacake:

Helmholtz Watson:
Run what kind of logic? All I'm saying is that we should have a country that traces back to our ancestors, that's it. You make it sound like I'm advocating for Israel to absorb the entire Middle East, which I'm not.

To try and drag this thread back to the original topic, the Argentines already have that: Argentina.

I did talk about the OP, it was a different user that brought up Israeli-Palestinian issues when I never even hinted on the subject.

Fair enough, I've only been semi following this thread, my mistake.

Helmholtz Watson:

Glasgow:

But the current state is home to all Jews (of the religious kind) not only of the ethnic kind... which means your argument fails.

Not really, I was talking about why there such a country should be created, not how they should manage their current immigration policy.

Glasgow:

We're going OT.

Yes we are, shall be both say our final words on the subject?

Yeah, sure. The Ancestral homeland argument is bull. You're working your way back to a reason why you're there in the first place. You don't need a reason to settle somewhere.

Seanchaidh:
"In the beginning, the Universe was created. This has made many people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." -Douglas Adams

:)

Yes, in the end it all comes back to the Hitchhiker's Guide. Truly a magnificient tome. :-)

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.

Well then, the Argentines should hand Argentina back over to the Natives and fuck off back to Spain.

Silly argument yes? So is the idea that Argentina somehow has a claim on Islands that have been British for 2 centuries, If we start going that far back (or further) to determine who owns what, then we'll soon find Mongolia and Italy as the two largest, most populous nations in the world.

Glasgow:

Yeah, sure. The Ancestral homeland argument is bull. You're working your way back to a reason why you're there in the first place. You don't need a reason to settle somewhere.

Ok good, so here is my last two cents on the Israel/Palestine issue. The ancestral homeland point is important because I think you do need a reason to settle in a part of the world and declare it a sovereign country for a ethnic group of people if you plan on settling in a place where other people currently live. Its the whole reason why Israel is where it is in the world today, and why its not in some other ridiculously proposed places.

Now back on topic....

Stu35:

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.

Well then, the Argentines should hand Argentina back over to the Natives and fuck off back to Spain.

Silly argument yes? So is the idea that Argentina somehow has a claim on Islands that have been British for 2 centuries, If we start going that far back (or further) to determine who owns what, then we'll soon find Mongolia and Italy as the two largest, most populous nations in the world.

I have to admit something, I was operating under the assumption that Argentinian people are the indigenous people of that part of the world, but apparently I was wrong(and ignorant). My apologies, I was mistaken.

So this is now the official "gib back clay" thread ?

In that case; Sweden, gib back: Skåne, Halland and Blekinge.

Germany: gib back Holsten and Prommen!

Norway, gib back Norway!

And England gib back England!
(would also like to have back Estonia, Iceland, Sicily and the West Indies)

All you imperial clay stealing dogs the whole lot of you!

Helmholtz Watson:

Glasgow:

Yeah, sure. The Ancestral homeland argument is bull. You're working your way back to a reason why you're there in the first place. You don't need a reason to settle somewhere.

Ok good, so here is my last two cents on the Israel/Palestine issue. The ancestral homeland point is important because I think you do need a reason to settle in a part of the world and declare it a sovereign country for a ethnic group of people if you plan on settling in a place where other people currently live. Its the whole reason why Israel is where it is in the world today, and why its not in some other ridiculously proposed places.

Now back on topic....

Stu35:

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.

Well then, the Argentines should hand Argentina back over to the Natives and fuck off back to Spain.

Silly argument yes? So is the idea that Argentina somehow has a claim on Islands that have been British for 2 centuries, If we start going that far back (or further) to determine who owns what, then we'll soon find Mongolia and Italy as the two largest, most populous nations in the world.

I have to admit something, I was operating under the assumption that Argentinian people are the indigenous people of that part of the world, but apparently I was wrong(and ignorant). My apologies, I was mistaken.

I'm not sure if its relevant but Britain didn't lose Hong Kong in the same way that it lost India. In the case of India the people made it clear they wanted independence, in the case of Hong Kong the lease simply ran out and ownership reverted back to China.

Vault Citizen:
I'm not sure if its relevant but Britain didn't lose Hong Kong in the same way that it lost India. In the case of India the people made it clear they wanted independence, in the case of Hong Kong the lease simply ran out and ownership reverted back to China.

And a lot of people in Hong Kong were apparently not that happy about it, either, afraid they'd lose their status. From what I understand, they do retain some of their former self-control but it's problematic for them.

Cant we just share the islands and usher in a new age of peace, understanding and top notch penguin documentaries for all?

adamsaccount:
Cant we just share the islands?

It will either take a few more generations or a lot of reconciliation before that could happen, many of the islanders have a fair bit of dislike for Argentinians. Xenophobia is never a healthy thing but after being locked in a town hall for weeks with 100 other people and no sanitation and little food it is on some level a little bit understandable.

adamsaccount:
Cant we just share the islands and usher in a new age of peace, understanding and top notch penguin documentaries for all?

1. Joint administration is going to be a nightmare. Who's laws applies? Who's regulations applies? Does everybody on the island get dual citizenship? Who does tax revenue go to? Where does the money that supports the island come from? Which court system do you appeal to? Do the people on the island get to keep all their current land ownership? If they do, that leaves little land for Argentinians to settle on. If they don't, will the people get compensated? Will any be forced from their homes?

2. The people on the island have stated loud and clear they want to remain British. They don't want Argentina's government to have any say over the islands. Why don't their opinions matter?

Surely they could do something like allowing Argentinians to settle without visas, though personally i find it hard to believe that a war was fought over these islands with the main population being sheep. Why do Britain or Argentina even want these islands, i can understand the Falklanders wanting to remain British if they were raised as such but then again if they want to be live in Britain shouldnt they just move to Britain? It just seems like a post imperialistic hang up that isnt really worth anyones time.

Not G. Ivingname:
Why don't their opinions matter?

because you can't run a pipeline from the Falklands to Britain ? (possibly)

adamsaccount:
Surely they could do something like allowing Argentinians to settle without visas, though personally i find it hard to believe that a war was fought over these islands with the main population being sheep. Why do Britain or Argentina even want these islands, i can understand the Falklanders wanting to remain British if they were raised as such but then again if they want to be live in Britain shouldnt they just move to Britain? It just seems like a post imperialistic hang up that isnt really worth anyones time.

Do Argentinians even want to settle there? The islands do not seem to have a big enough economy to require a population influx.

The islanders want to remain on the islands because it is their home. They want to remain British because they feel that Britain is offering them a much better support than Argentina ever would. Why should they leave their home or change their nationality because Argentina has a nationalistic hangup that isn't really worth anyone's time?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked