falklands Trouble at mill: las Malvinas

[Xanrn]

Northern Ireland apart from a few retards who can't even make working bombs, has gone the peaceful democratic route about determining its future.

Also you seem to have missed the entire point of the troubles, its pretty much 50/50 want to be Irish/want to be British.

Wales hasn't had a rebellion in 600 years and that was part of the Game of Thrones of England.

Scotland hasn't had a rebellion since we were joined in Union and no Bonnie Prince Charles was not after Independence but the British throne.

[Lord Calway]

Other than arguably Ireland, none of those countries feels strongly enough about leaving the UK (largely a symbolic gesture in any case, as I'm sure any Canadian will tell you) to raise arms. If they did, and the UK raised their own armies in response, you might perhaps have a point.

It has happened several times. There have been countless armed conflicts between those countries and England. Still, they were denied their independence. And worse, Scotland's "Stone of Coronation" had been in London for almost 700 years until it was taken back to Edinborough. Medieval history, I know. Yet it shows how eager the UK is in respecting people's choice to remain part of the country, yet so reluctant to respect people's choice to be independent.

Not that the parallel applies all that well, since it was Argentina who invaded the Falkland Islands, and therefore it is Argentina that must offer moral justification for that invasion.

This struggle goes way back to the first english invasions into those lands. But maybe no british person had ever heard of Falklands until thirty years ago. Argentinians have claimed them for much longer than that, since the 19th Century.

[dog-days]

It has happened several times. There have been countless armed conflicts between those countries and England. Still, they were denied their independence. And worse, Scotland's "Stone of Coronation" had been in London for almost 700 years until it was taken back to Edinborough. Medieval history, I know. Yet it shows how eager the UK is in respecting people's choice to remain part of the country, yet so reluctant to respect people's choice to be independent.

I think you've watched too many Mel Gibson films. A major reason for the lengthy residence of the stone in London has been the presence of the Scottish monarch there, what with Britain having been ruled/presided over by the descendants of James VI of Scotland for the last four hundred years. And for at least half of that time, the idea of self-determination - rule by the mob, as it would most likely have appeared to the worthies of Scotland and England - was not nearly so feted as it is at present, if it could even be said to have existed then at all. At present, polls show that the Scots are evenly split as to whether they would vote in favour of independence. Just as many fervently oppose it as fervently demand it.

This struggle goes way back to the first english invasions into those lands. But maybe no british person had ever heard of Falklands until thirty years ago. Argentinians have claimed them for much longer than that, since the 19th Century.

Oh goody. That settles that then. I'll get on to the islanders tell them; they'll be so happy to have their future put in the hands of a country that thinks they're all Evil Imperialists ^TM.

[Lord Calway]

I have not seen any Mel Gibson films, but I guess you mean the one where he plays William Wallace. Thanks for just assuming my ignorance, though... But films, books or whatever historical record you choose, there's no way to deny that England found a the right symbol to reflect how Scotland was subdued.

Anyways, you all fail to respond to my main idea. The UK respects those willing to remain part of the Kingdom, but being honest, is the Crown willing to grant independency to those who don't? I don't think so.

That's what I meant with hypocrisy.

I don't mind people saying "the British right over the Falklands is the right of conquest", because that's allright. But saying "as long as they want to be part of the UK we will respect that" is an empty argument because even if they all wanted to be part of Argentina things wouldn't change.

[LuisDantas]

It has happened several times. There have been countless armed conflicts between those countries and England. Still, they were denied their independence. And worse, Scotland's "Stone of Coronation" had been in London for almost 700 years until it was taken back to Edinborough. Medieval history, I know. Yet it shows how eager the UK is in respecting people's choice to remain part of the country, yet so reluctant to respect people's choice to be independent.

What is your point again?

This struggle goes way back to the first english invasions into those lands. But maybe no british person had ever heard of Falklands until thirty years ago. Argentinians have claimed them for much longer than that, since the 19th Century.

Are you aware that pretty much the whole population of the Falklands is British, and has been so for well over as century? The Falklands were very much an established British colony when they were invaded by Argentina almost 30 years ago. There was (and there is to this day) no desire to be part of Argentina among the islanders.

So what is it again? Are you supporting Imperialism (the only conceivable justification for the Argentinian claim, far as I can tell) or are you against it (and therefore, unavoidably, supportive of the Falklands' desire to remain British)?

[LuisDantas]

Anyways, you all fail to respond to my main idea. The UK respects those willing to remain part of the Kingdom, but being honest, is the Crown willing to grant independency to those who don't? I don't think so.

I'm not even sure I understand what you mean. How does it work, this idea of a foreign nation granting independence to some people?

I thought independence was, by definition, self-proclaimed and supported mainly by oneself.

That's what I meant with hypocrisy.

If you say so.

I don't mind people saying "the British right over the Falklands is the right of conquest", because that's allright.

It was at one point, way back in the 19th century. And at that point Argentina's claim might perhaps be seen as legit.

As of now, however, Argentina claiming the Falklands would be akin to the UK claiming the USA or Spain claiming Argentina - it just doesn't make any sense and can only be understood as a new stance of war of conquest. At this point, the United Kingdom's claim is one of self-determination, because it arises mainly from the desire of the people who actually live there.

A claim can not possibly be considered legitimate when the whole population living there for over a century refuses to support it. Argentina has no claim.

But saying "as long as they want to be part of the UK we will respect that" is an empty argument because even if they all wanted to be part of Argentina things wouldn't change.

That is a grave accusation, and one that should be directed towards Argentina, that is the part involved that actually shows such behavior.

[Stannis the Great]

It has happened several times. There have been countless armed conflicts between those countries and England. Still, they were denied their independence. And worse, Scotland's "Stone of Coronation" had been in London for almost 700 years until it was taken back to Edinborough. Medieval history, I know. Yet it shows how eager the UK is in respecting people's choice to remain part of the country, yet so reluctant to respect people's choice to be independent.

This struggle goes way back to the first english invasions into those lands. But maybe no british person had ever heard of Falklands until thirty years ago. Argentinians have claimed them for much longer than that, since the 19th Century.

You are somehow equating the actions of an autocratic society that existed almost 7 centuries ago (at a time when the country that formed Argentina itself wasn't actually in existence) with a democratic society that exists today.

It's funny how you track the Spanish claim to the 19th century yet conveniently forget the earlier claims of the British and even the French. And there's the whole issue of the justification of having a Spanish claim being inherited by Argentina.

The main reason for the whole debacle that was the Falklands War was that the Argentinian government was so shit that they sought to unite the country by attacking what they thought was an easy target.

Then there's also the fact that the vast majority of the islanders prefer to be under British sovereignty.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

LC,

Has Argentina ever allowed a portion of its claimed territory (other than the Falklands) to seperate and form a new nation?

[LuisDantas]

Arguably Uruguay, although the history is somewhat complicated.

British, Spanish and Portuguese were quite entangled in the region in the 19th century. It was eventually taken by Brazil some two or three years before it declared its own independence from Portugal.

In 1825, some disatisfied locals wanted to declare independence, with Argentinian support. About three years later, the Montevideo Treaty (sponsored by the UK, mind you) established Uruguay as an independent nation.

And then Uruguay began to get rid of its own native people... but really, that is the way things usually went here in South America, or at least in Brazil and Argentina (and geographically, Uruguay is very much between both and the ocean). Native people are nearly extinct.

But truth be told, from what I gather of the history texts, while there was probably much talk of patriotism and the like, the motivations both for and against independent nations seemed to have little to do with preserving cultures or respecting the desire of local populations and far more to do with securing commercial opportunities for bold, proud adventurers or representatives of established governments (two groups that very much overlap).

It may well be that in some senses it was a more honest view of the nature and goals of politics. It reminds me of the Trident and Harrenhal in some ways - it is just so pointless to try and see altruistic goals in taking those places.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Luis,

Understood. My frustration with LC is that at this point what issue of territory is more important than the residents' of the Falklands desire to remain part of the UK?

[LuisDantas]

Yes, I wonder that too.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

That's what I meant with hypocrisy.

I don't mind people saying "the British right over the Falklands is the right of conquest", because that's allright. But saying "as long as they want to be part of the UK we will respect that" is an empty argument because even if they all wanted to be part of Argentina things wouldn't change.

People can be hypocrites, but not nations.

Pointing to things that happened in British history where the protagonists are long since dead or out of power, and contrasting it with British foreign policy today is nonsensical. Different peoples, different times.

Since WWII, the U.K. has granted independence to almost all of its various colonies around the world, essentially divesting itself of its empire. That is clear evidence of the modern U.K.'s endorsement of the principle of self-determination. I cannot think of any nation that unwillingly remains a part of the Empire. Therefore, there is nothing at all hypocritical about the U.K. upholding that principle as it applies to the desire of the people of the Falklands to remain British subjects.

[Slurms McKenzie]

As of now, however, Argentina claiming the Falklands would be akin to the UK claiming the USA or Spain claiming Argentina - it just doesn't make any sense and can only be understood as a new stance of war of conquest. At this point, the United Kingdom's claim is one of self-determination, because it arises mainly from the desire of the people who actually live there.

A claim can not possibly be considered legitimate when the whole population living there for over a century refuses to support it. Argentina has no claim.

Yup, a fine and sound arguement that I agree with wholeheartedly!

[Lummel]

Thanks for just assuming my ignorance, though...

Well you did misspell Edinburgh. That and 'the countless armed conflicts' speak for themselves.

And I don't agree with your main point either. Somehow I doubt that the UK would have respected the will of the residents of Hong Kong had they expressed a clear wish to remain in the UK rather than be returned to China and as has been mentioned the opinions of the former inhabitants of Diego Garcia haven't received much in the way of respect from the Executive either.

[Maltaran]

Bump for an update - Cameron has now accused Argentina of colonialism

[Liffguard]

Not exactly inaccurate.

[Slick Mongoose]

Argentina responds:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...merica-16625963

"I know you are, but what am I"????

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

SM,

This has nothing to do with the desires of the residents. What else can he say. "Fuck the Islanders. That's our oil and natural gas and you know it!"

[Lady Octarina]

As a Brazilian, I understand more about Argentina's History than England's, and I agree that, after all this time, people from the Malvinas probably feel more British than Argentine (not to mention there's still a certain status in having this close connection to GB, who knows why). If I had to defend anything, it would be complete independence for the Malvinas, but I'm not sure how the political situation is in there, if they have conditions to achieve independence, etc. Yes, I'm a hard believer in the dream that, one day, no part of the Americas will be under European control, and viva Bolívar!

But, really, Argentina always turns to the Malvina situation when they're in the middle of some crisis and wish to stimulate one kind of nationalism that will make their people momentarily forget the sh*t going on there and unite in their thoughts against a foreign conqueror or something. Last time they did this (and I mean the War in the 70's) was a way to turn people's minds from the military dictatorship, all the torture and disappearance going on over there, which kind of worked, until they lost... For anyone interested in this, Beatriz Sarlo has written a book on this subject (really forgot the name).

[SeanF]

Bump for an update - Cameron has now accused Argentina of colonialism

Maintaining a hostile territorial claim to an area, against the wishes of the vast majority that area's inhabitants, is certainly one form of colonialism.