SRFC wrote: Demogorgon wrote: I don't think people's sovereignty should be decided above their heads with no influence from them.

Unfortunately thats how the boundaries of most states in the world came about. In a lot of places it worked, in more it didn't. The people of the Falklands are the descendents of the beneficiaries of sovereignty being decided above peoples heads, the UK took it and then they emigrated there. If my grandfather had stolen nazi artwork and I inherited it, society would tale a dim view of that.

How far back do you have to go? No one of us has ancestors who have lived where we do now since the origins of time.

There's arguments that living memory is a different issue. But I certainly don't feel I should be giving parts of England back to the French. Or the Italians maybe. At some point, history becomes just that. Things change, andusually by violence. It's just the way the world works.

WastedOnTheWay wrote: Demogorgon wrote: Well we would be talking about oppressing a minority then, which would make matters different. But there is no minority on the Falklands to be oppressed. By all means have a vote on joining Argentina but they ain't going to win.

The British drove the oppressed Argentinian minority off the island in 1982 :...:
Sucks for them, their government shouldn't have invaded unless it was going to win.

alex999 wrote: WastedOnTheWay wrote: Demogorgon wrote: Well we would be talking about oppressing a minority then, which would make matters different. But there is no minority on the Falklands to be oppressed. By all means have a vote on joining Argentina but they ain't going to win.

The British drove the oppressed Argentinian minority off the island in 1982 :...:
Sucks for them, their government shouldn't have invaded unless it was going to win.

Agentina was a military dictatorship at the time. There wasn't much the Argentinians could do about their government's actions.

Demogorgon wrote: alex999 wrote: WastedOnTheWay wrote: Demogorgon wrote: Well we would be talking about oppressing a minority then, which would make matters different. But there is no minority on the Falklands to be oppressed. By all means have a vote on joining Argentina but they ain't going to win.

The British drove the oppressed Argentinian minority off the island in 1982 :...:
Sucks for them, their government shouldn't have invaded unless it was going to win.

Agentina was a military dictatorship at the time. There wasn't much the Argentinians could do about their government's actions.

Yeah, sometimes people get screwed by their governments. Still, it did at least motivate them to get rid of them.

alex999 wrote: Sucks for them, their government shouldn't have invaded unless it was going to win.

The thread was about who should have the islands, not who does have them or who will have them. Saying the country that can win the war deserves it makes as much sense as saying the country that can win a game of cricket or football deserves the island.

Demogorgon wrote: But at the end of the day, it is very easy to say the Falklands should be Argentinian, but try and tell the people who live there that.

Yes, remember how upset the zionists got when they were evicted from their settlements in Gaza by the Israeli Government.

alex999 wrote:
There's arguments that living memory is a different issue. But I certainly don't feel I should be giving parts of England back to the French. Or the Italians maybe. At some point, history becomes just that. Things change, andusually by violence. It's just the way the world works.

I cant think of anything to counteract this argument.

Obviously, my repatriation of the brits in the malvinas sounds like a logical argument when your talking about less than 3,000 people, but it couldn't work on a greater scale, which means the theory fails.

WastedOnTheWay wrote: Demogorgon wrote: But at the end of the day, it is very easy to say the Falklands should be Argentinian, but try and tell the people who live there that.

Yes, remember how upset the zionists got when they were evicted from their settlements in Gaza by the Israeli Government.

Yeah, but there were people in the Gaza strip whose land was being stolen. There is nobody on the Falklands being controlled.

Argentina's claim is geographical. To me it makes about as muchsense as saying Canada should have Greenland.

WastedOnTheWay wrote: alex999 wrote: Sucks for them, their government shouldn't have invaded unless it was going to win.

The thread was about who should have the islands, not who does have them or who will have them. Saying the country that can win the war deserves it makes as much sense as saying the country that can win a game of cricket or football deserves the island.

The argument for who should have them hangs on the fact that the people there are British and wish to be. Also that they are not a source of resources that we are "robbing" the Argies of.

The argument for who does and will have them hangs on who has the power to control them.

Fortunately in this case the two go hand in hand.

Your analogy would work if cricket was so violent as to displace populations. However, it is a very staid and leisurely sport, so the comparison fall down.

alex999 wrote: Your analogy would work if cricket was so violent as to displace populations. However, it is a very staid and leisurely sport, so the comparison fall down.

What I meant was that if there is a side in a conflict with the moral high-ground, simply being "the good guys" doesn't guarantee military victory.

WastedOnTheWay wrote: alex999 wrote: Your analogy would work if cricket was so violent as to displace populations. However, it is a very staid and leisurely sport, so the comparison fall down.

What I meant was that if there is a side in a conflict with the moral high-ground, simply being "the good guys" doesn't guarantee military victory.

No, it doesn't unfortunately.

I should

Demogorgon wrote: Yeah, but there were people in the Gaza strip whose land was being stolen. There is nobody on the Falklands being controlled.

Argentina's claim is geographical. To me it makes about as muchsense as saying Canada should have Greenland.

from wikipedia

Quote: These events provided the spur for Britain to finally and permanently return to the islands, (See 1833 invasion of the Falkland Islands), removing Argentine settlers on 3 January 1833 and refounding Port Louis as a naval garrison and civilian settlement. An interesting episode for those investigating the sovereignty claims is the true story of "El Gaucho Rivero". In August 1833 Antonio Rivero was involved in an incident where a number of important figures on the islands were murdered. Rivero was taken to London to be judged, however when the case came before the High Court it was dismissed because the court felt that the British Crown had no authority over the islands at this time, and Rivero was returned to Argentina.

alex999 wrote: The argument for who should have them hangs on the fact that the people there are British and wish to be. Also that they are not a source of resources that we are "robbing" the Argies of.

If resources were found like oil would you say it was Argentina's then?

alex999 wrote: WastedOnTheWay wrote: alex999 wrote: The argument for who should have them hangs on the fact that the people there are British and wish to be. Also that they are not a source of resources that we are "robbing" the Argies of.
If resources were found like oil would you say it was Argentina's then?
No. But there would be slightly more argument for it.

Okay so when there's some poor quality soil with a few sheep there is no argument for it being Argentina's. And when there is oil there is slightly more argument for it. I wonder what kind of magical, wonderful resource they'd need to find for Britain's presence to be considered an occupation...