| Author |
|
Doug Campbell
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 29 March 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 365
|
| Posted: 05 March 2012 at 5:17pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
Brennan: Neil I assume the same thing that happened to the inhabitants of Hong Kong when China regained its sovereignty over her territory would happen to those presently living on the Malvinas. In other words, life would go on.
Of course, the main difference here is that Britain was leasing land in Hong Kong from China, and returned it when the lease expired. The Falklands have never belonged to Argentina, which seems to think that "Gimme!" constitutes a moral imperative superseding the wishes of the inhabitants.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Brennan Voboril
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 15 January 2011
Posts: 1735
|
| Posted: 06 March 2012 at 3:24am | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Waters is now claiming he was misquoted:
http://en.mercopress.com/2012/03/06/waters-denies-having-sai d-what-he-said-and-blasts-malvinas-war
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Simon Bowland
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: England
Posts: 385
|
| Posted: 06 March 2012 at 1:31pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
You are still avoiding the question that so many of us have put to you Brennan - why do the viewpoints of the people who live there not seem to count to you?
He's avoiding answering that question because he knows he can't provide a logical reason for his beliefs.
Brennan, the reality is that the Falkland Islands will remain a British Overseas Territory until such time as its inhabitants choose otherwise. Continuing to refer to the islands as the "Malvinas" is just badger-baiting. "Malvinas" is a Spanish word, and since you're not typing your posts in Spanish, I don't understand why you keep using that word.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Lars Johansson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 04 June 2004
Location: Sweden
Posts: 6113
|
| Posted: 06 March 2012 at 1:47pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
It's unlikely that the British and Thatcher were doing anything wrong. They are dropping off all their colonies when appropriate if that is what the people want. I don't know how big it is Great Britain, but 1/3 of Sweden's area or something.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Brennan Voboril
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 15 January 2011
Posts: 1735
|
| Posted: 06 March 2012 at 1:58pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Hi guys,
If you want to understand it from the Argentine perspective the government has the details here:
I believe the original inhabitants were expelled in 1833? 1831? I forget the exact year but this is the Argentine argument. I realize the British will argue that isn't the case but that's to be expected.
I am an American and support my fellow Americans in Argentina. Perhaps my feelings are colored by the fact my ancestors fought in the Revolutionary War.
I've always felt all colonies should be freed.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Mike Norris
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4272
|
| Posted: 06 March 2012 at 2:15pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
How is making the inhabitants of the islands Argentinian by force freeing them?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Simon Bowland
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: England
Posts: 385
|
| Posted: 06 March 2012 at 2:41pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
Brennan, you're an American? So will you be happy to hand your country back to the Native Americans - the indigenous people who lived there prior to the arrival of Columbus?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Peter Martin
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 March 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 16216
|
| Posted: 06 March 2012 at 2:42pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
I've always felt all colonies should be freed---------------------------- In what way are they not free? Which bit of they want to stay as part of Britain don't you understand?
That link goes to a lot of content. Perhaps it would be easier for you to sum up your own argument against the people of the Falklands and why they do not have a right to self-determination?
Despite its lengthy history, that site you linked to seems very light on the details of why they decided to send in their marines to invade, leading ultimately to the deaths of 907 people.
This is what it says about the war in 1982:
"In view of the contradictory signals from the British government, in early March the Argentine government decided to issue a statement disclosing the nature of the negotiations and urging the United Kingdom to accept the latest Argentine proposal. Those were the circumstances surrounding the events that led to the armed conflict; sovereignty negotiations not to resume, a situation which has continued until now due to the British refusal."
Well that justifies the decision to invade and occupy the islands then!
The site also complains about us continuing to operate military exercises in the area. Which is obviously more offensive than the Argentinian military invading the island.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Robbie Parry
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 17 June 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 12185
|
| Posted: 06 March 2012 at 3:28pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
I'll have to quote my earlier post.
QUOTE:
| Getting into the history of any nation is tricky. As I've said before, I don't believe people can be held responsible for the actions of their ancestors. Each country's history is different, but if someone started saying that the US should give back land it has would be viewed as absurd (it would be impactical and immoral, anyway). What if Spain wanted it's former colonies back? Bangladesh was once part of Pakistan, what if there were some arguing for that to happen again? No nation has a perfect record on human rights. We can't be held responsible for what has happened, we can only strive to do right in the future. My friend in the Falklands is a sixth-generation islander. We communicate via e-mail regularly - she tells me that the islanders want to remain part of a self-governing British overseas territory. That's the view and Argentina will have to respect that. |
|
|
I can't add much to that first paragraph. I think it would get tricky (and would be impossible and immoral, anyway) if, by some miracle, the international community could reach a consensus and start giving land back that had been taken. Do you kick out inhabitants (not just talking about the Falklands now) from countries/territories where people have lived for generations? Do we do that? It'd be ridiculous. As I said, you can only try and do things for the better of all humanity. Countries, and Britain is by no means alone in this, has things in their history which involve conquest, fighting over territories, acquiring land. What's happened has happened. I've been speaking to my friend over there. Like I said, she's a sixth-generation islander. She feels there is nothing to negotiate as the people there want to remain a self-governing British territory. There aren't many people living there (over 2000, I guess) so a consensus is more achievable - and they all want to remain where they are.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Doug Campbell
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 29 March 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 365
|
| Posted: 06 March 2012 at 3:56pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
Brennan, you're an American? So will you be happy to hand your country back to the Native Americans - the indigenous people who lived there prior to the arrival of Columbus?
Actually, I think he hasn't so much made an argument which would justify giving the United States back to Natives Americans as he has one for giving Canada to the United States.
After all, Canada is really close to the USA, giving us a "natural" claim to that land. More than a century ago the US attempted an unsuccessful invasion of Canada, much as Argentina did with the Falklands. It is of course, the nasty ol' Brits who maintained a colony there in the first place, and all inhabitants of this hemisphere are honor bound to oppose such blatant imperialism. Sure, the actual inhabitants of Canada might not like the idea, but as with Hong Kong, "life would go on."
Clearly, the USA has a just claim to Canada (or, as we in the States prefer to call it, "North Michigan"). Quod erat demonstrandum.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Luke Styer
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1515
|
| Posted: 06 March 2012 at 3:59pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
QUOTE:
| I've been speaking to my friend over there. Like I said, she's a sixth-generation islander. She feels there is nothing to negotiate as the people there want to remain a self-governing British territory. There aren't many people living there (over 2000, I guess) so a consensus is more achievable - and they all want to remain where they are. |
|
|
Well I guess they should have thought of that before they were born.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Stuart Vandal
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 02 July 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 143
|
| Posted: 06 March 2012 at 5:47pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
"I believe the original inhabitants were expelled in 1833? 1831? I forget the exact year but this is the Argentine argument."
The exact case of who found the islands first is heavily disputed - there's lots of back and forth claims that various sailors who sighted islands in the South Atlantic had spotted the Falklands. But as far as expelling the "original inhabitants", there were no original inhabitants - the first unquestionably confirmed landing and claim on the islands was made by an English sailor in the 1690s, when the islands were named the Falklands. Both Britain and France set up bases there within a year of one another back in the 1760s; the French subsequently sold theirs to the Spanish, who believed they had a right to the whole region based on a Papal Bull from the 1490s, when the Pope had arbitrarily split the New World between Spain and Portugal. Both settlements were abandoned later, and Britain and Spain would continue to argue over who owned the islands, neither one giving up their claim.
Another settlement, the one you are talking about, was set up in 1828 - so even if Britain had expelled that settlement, it wouldn't have been the "original inhabitants" - they'd been there for a whole five years when Britain reasserted its claim. But that's not what happened anyway - first, Vernet, the man who established that settlement, had been given land in the Falklands by Argentina - so before he set up his settlement, what did he do? Asked British permission to do so - clearly he wasn't so sure he could set up there just on Argentina's say so. And some of those settlers were British. Meanwhile Britain continued to protest about Argentina laying claim to the islands. Then Vernet used the island to commit piracy - he seized American vessels in 1831. The USS Lexington was sent to investigate and retaliated, and by Vernet's own account, his settlement was destroyed - by the Americans, not the British. The piracy incident prompted Britain to send ships to reclaim the islands - previously they'd been fine with sticking to diplomacy, but the US accounts said the islands had no government and were being used by pirates. The British vessels arrived to find that a force from Argentina had landed a month earlier, intending to set up a penal colony. The British asked them to leave, and the Argentinian commander agreed. However, because Vernet's settlement had been established with British permission, the Argentinian commander asked that what was left of that settlement be allowed to stay. There wasn't many people left from that settlement, thanks to the Lexington's attack, but they were permitted to stay, with a British governor put in place. NOT expelled - allowed to stay.
Thing is, all that's ancient history. Spain and Britain both claimed the islands and it's impossible to say who definitely laid claim first, and Argentina's claim is based on Spain's. Without a time machine, it can never be settled. You just get into an unending argument of "he said, she said." The colony set up in 1828 got permission from both countries, so they clearly didn't consider one claim or the other a safe bet. Britain didn't take the place by force and expel the "original inhabitants" - it turned up at a lawless settlement and told a very recently arrived Argentinian force "sorry, these are our islands, please leave" and they did, without a fight. The islands have been British ever since.
Neither side can claim a definitive historial right the islands. But as most of us recognise, that's not the point, not now, 180 or so years later. What is the point is that the present inhabitants, who have been there for generations, consider themselves British - that's all that should count.
As for all colonies needing to be freed, what about Aruba, which is part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands but lies only 27 miles from Venezuela? Or French Guiana? Or the Northern Mariana Islands, which are under US rule after the US seized them by force less than 60 years ago, and which are way closer to the Philippines or Japan than they are to the USA? But the difference here is that all the old disputed claimants to these places recognise the rights of the inhabitants to decide their own fate, and in each case, these "colonies" chose the current affiliations. Just as the Falkland Islanders want to do.
Edited by Stuart Vandal on 06 March 2012 at 5:48pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
|
|
Topic Closed)
