| Author |
|
Brennan Voboril
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 15 January 2011
Posts: 1735
|
| Posted: 08 March 2012 at 9:05am | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
Questions:
Is it true that over 50% of the current Malvinas residents were not born there?
Was the current governor elected or appointed?
I have more but the answers to those two might help out discussion.
Thanks.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Stuart Vandal
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 02 July 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 143
|
| Posted: 08 March 2012 at 10:08am | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
"the answers to those two might help out discussion."
What discussion? You keep ignoring a direct question put to you by several people about why you feel the islanders have no right to self-determination. All you do instead is keep pointing people to Argentina's unquestionably baised account of history (which is invalidated because it clearly ignores contradictory accounts of events when they don't support Argentina's case, not just British ones, but American and even Argentinian ones), and then come up with new attempts to try and make out Britain as the villains ("they are ignoring UN resolutions"), and then when those get shot down you don't even attempt to respond (Britain's gone along with the UN resolutions as best it can, given the Falklanders' right to decide their own nationality, while Argentina has blatantly ignored the bits of the resolutions that don't suit).
"Is it true that over 50% of the current Malvinas residents were not born there?"
I don't know. I know the islands have seen a growth of population since the Falklands war, in part down to immigration. I'm guessing you feel this means those new residents don't have a right to decide their own nationality. Apart from that being more than a little dubious (hey guys, just to let you know, if you emigrate somewhere and become a citizen, Brennan doesn't think you have any rights in regards to deciding who governs you! Please tell Craig Ferguson he's got no rights to vote in the upcoming US elections), let's assume we only let the Falklanders who were born on the islands vote as to whether they want to be Argentinian or British. The vote would still be for the latter.
"Was the current governor elected or appointed?"
Appointed. But that's because he's the liaison between the Falklands Islands (elected) government and the UK government. He isn't in charge of the islands or their government, any more than the Governor Generals of Australia or Canada are in charge of those nations.
Edited by Stuart Vandal on 08 March 2012 at 10:08am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Simon Bowland
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: England
Posts: 385
|
| Posted: 08 March 2012 at 10:24am | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
I've had to put the guy on my ignore list - first time I've ever done that on any website, but it's akin to having a conversation with a brick wall. And as a proud British citizen, I find it somewhat insulting that he persists in referring to the Falkland Islands by an incorrect name. Yeesh. At least he's in good company, down there with Morrissey and Sean Penn.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Robbie Parry
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 June 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 12185
|
| Posted: 08 March 2012 at 10:32am | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
I can't speak for every islander, but my friend is sixth-generation. Many others have been there for generations, too. Brennan, do you feel the islanders have a right to self-determination? Putting aside history for a moment, putting aside semantics about how many were born there, do you feel the ones currently living there have a right to self-determination?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Matt Reed
Byrne Robotics Security
Robotmod
Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 36399
|
| Posted: 08 March 2012 at 10:49am | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Curious if Texas falls under the rules that Brennan is playing by. Putting aside vast differences in military, does Mexico have a right to take it back? I mean, the Spanish ruled the territory from 1690-1821 and then Mexico from 1821-1836. Roughly the same time period as we're talking about in this thread. Texas didn't become a state until 1845. If Mexico suddently wanted to lay claim to Texas based on that history, could they Brennan?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Brad Brickley
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 29 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 8295
|
| Posted: 08 March 2012 at 11:20am | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Brennan's arguments remind me of why nations go to war, no amount of reasonable talk will matter. A certain action is wanted and nothing the other side says matters.
I watched a Dan Rather Reports on HD Net last month on the Falkland Islands, where they went to Argentine classrooms and show that for the last 30 years they've been teaching that the "Malvinas Islands" were stolen from Argentina and have been illegally occupied ever since. It's a national policy to keep these islands in the forefront of the Argentine people's thoughts and indoctrinate the children from a young age to think along these lines. To me it just sidesteps the important goals of the Argentine people, good governance.
I think people of a certain location should decide their* own fate, not let some outside aggressor decide what is best. It works better that way for everyone.
*Spelling edit.
Edited by Brad Brickley on 08 March 2012 at 1:06pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Brian Floyd
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 07 July 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 8788
|
| Posted: 08 March 2012 at 12:29pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
Can't we all just mark Brennan as either a troll, anti-British or from Argentina and be done with it?
Its clear that no matter how invalid his arguments, no matter how many holes in them, and no matter how much evidence there is to oppose his views, he's just not going to listen. As Simon says (hey!), its like talking to a brick wall.
And if Argentina does ever send troops to the Falklands again, Britain should consider invading mainland Argentina.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Robbie Parry
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 June 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 12185
|
| Posted: 08 March 2012 at 12:38pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
QUOTE:
| Curious if Texas falls under the rules that Brennan is playing by. Putting aside vast differences in military, does Mexico have a right to take it back? I mean, the Spanish ruled the territory from 1690-1821 and then Mexico from 1821-1836. Roughly the same time period as we're talking about in this thread. Texas didn't become a state until 1845. If Mexico suddently wanted to lay claim to Texas based on that history, could they Brennan? |
|
|
Indeed. By Brennan's logic, if Mexico suddenly wanted to lay claim, Texas should enter into discussions. As I've said before in this thread, you can't start getting into historical semantics because a) you'd never get anywhere and b) it'd be most unfair to current inhabitants, whether we're talking Falkland Islanders or Texans. I do think Brennan has been given the opportunity to answer direct questions, but hasn't done so, instead linking to other sites and talking about history, which is debatable, anyway, given the amount of nations who visited the islands centuries ago. I'll continue to look in on this topic to see the many great comments that have been made, but I'm through asking the questions now, if they're not going to get answered.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Stuart Vandal
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 02 July 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 143
|
| Posted: 08 March 2012 at 12:40pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
I agree that Brennan just isn't wanting to acknowledge anything that conflicts with his viewpoint. That said, I also feel, or at least felt, it was worth responding to his statements to make sure both sides of the debate were heard. Brennan might already have made his mind up, and be convinced that those who believe differently from him are all just biased Brits, but I don't believe that's the case for everyone.What I'm curious to find out is, of those people here who are not British, has this debate caused any of you to re-evaluate your thoughts about the debate? Whether you originally supported Argentina or Britain, or whether you didn't really know / care either way, has this discussion changed your mind? If it has, even if it has shifted you to supporting Argentina, then having this debate has been worthwhile, because it's helped people make a (hopefully) informed decision on the topic at hand.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Doug Campbell
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 29 March 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 365
|
| Posted: 08 March 2012 at 1:11pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
My general mindset about the issue before reading this thread was essentially "Who cares?" The Falklands seem to be miserable rocks in the South Atlantic that should be of little consequence one way or the other. I certainly do acknowledge that in the western hemisphere, there is often a legacy of European imperialism which saw land blatantly stolen and the original inhabitants dispossessed.
After just a bit of reading on this particular issue, however, the Falklands do not seem to be an instance of that. Rather it is a matter of the descendents of one group of Europeans arguing with the descendents of another group of Europeans over which most legitimately can lay claim to the aforementioned miserable South Atlantic rocks.
I reckon the Brits have the better of the argument both morally and militarily, but it's still astounding to me that anybody beyond the 3000 or so Falklanders especially cares, let alone cares enough to go to war.
Edited by Doug Campbell on 08 March 2012 at 1:12pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Simon Bowland
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: England
Posts: 385
|
| Posted: 08 March 2012 at 4:31pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
Well Doug, we "Brits" like to look after our own, as I'm sure you "Yanks" would do if anyone threatened, for example, the islands of Hawaii (you do remember Pearl Harbour, 1941, I trust?). That's a really ignorant attitude to have, I have to say. Have you ever visited the Falklands? And if not, how do you actually know that they're "miserable South Atlantic rocks"?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Doug Campbell
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 29 March 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 365
|
| Posted: 08 March 2012 at 7:28pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
Oh, it's a totally ignorant attitude. I was addressing Stuart's question of how the information in this thread has affected attitudes. The Falklands might be thoroughly lovely for all I know, which I freely admit is very little.
And please don't mistake my position: it seems clear to me that they ought to remain British territory. But at the same time, they are small and sparsely populated, and seem hardly worth the fuss that has been made over them. If, say, the Philippines were claiming sovereignty of the Marianas Islands(an American possession in the vicinity), I doubt if I would be especially troubled by the matter, so long as the inhabitants consented.
If this were solely a matter of Britain clinging to the vestiges of empire, I would find the British claim to the Falklands every bit as pathetic as I indeed find the Argentine claim (I believe the analogy was two bald men fighting over a comb) . The rub is what the inhabitants want. If they wish, as they do, to remain British then British they ought to remain.
In my opinion at least, which, as we have established, is not particularly well-informed. And I meant no disrespect with the term "Brit" either. You Limeys are one of my favorite nationalities.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
|
|
Topic Closed)
