Sean Penn appears to have lost his mind

They aren't staking a claim to it now, they did that over 150 years ago, they're defending well-established British communities which deeply desire to remain under British protection. If democracy and the right to self-determination means anything then they have put their foot down on the British side.

So in essence, the people of the Falkland Islands should decided what they want from their land?

The french settled the Falklands first, then we took over. At the time of colonisation Argentina as a country didn't even exist.

Carlos wrote:The french settled the Falklands first, then we took over. At the time of colonisation Argentina as a country didn't even exist.

And when it did exist, it decided that the genocidal eradication of the Patagonian natives was a good idea...

Ok my last post.

It is rich for a colony to scream and cry about colonialism, but it is not rich for a country that colonised countries to scream and cry about another country wanting to colonise a close by archipelago?

So in brief, you are telling me that Britain's claim over the island is "We found it first, its ours" kind of thing...

Well to be fair, the fact the Europeans wanted all the world to be theirs for the taking and tried to take most countries by force is really not an excuse and that is why countries fought for independence.

I can see how discovering a new land in the past would have meant claiming it as yours, but I cannot see how most of you will agree that Britain has a right to claim a land so far away as theirs now, considering that from what Ive read, the place saw a rise in inhabitants only in the late 1800s (correct me if Im wrong)

Britains claim over the island indeed comes down to “we found it first” mixed with the fact that there are 3000 people living there. The fact that the rise in inhabitants only came about in the 1800s is irrelevant, the people have lived there for generations and should therefore have the right to decide who they are governed by. Remember that the islands were uninhabited before the rise in immigration. Are you saying that there is a time limit over how long people can decide who they are governed by? If the people had moved there in the 1700s, the 1500’s or the 900’s, would you support their right to self determination?

We have a right to claim a land so far away because the people living on that land want us to claim them. If they wanted to be governed by Argentina, or there was a significant split in opinion, then I might be swayed towards allowing Argentina to have some say in the matter. As it stands, Argentina have no rights at all.

Europeans might have wanted to own the world (that sort of desire is not limited just to Europeans though) and might have conquered huge stretches of land across the world, but that only means we have to deal with the world we have been left with. If we want to undo all colonialism, then we need to start by moving the vast majority of people out of North and South America and handing that land back solely to the natives. And even then, Britain will own the Falklands as the inhabitants there now are the natives due to nobody living there before.

Moggy wrote:

Ok my last post.

It is rich for a colony to scream and cry about colonialism, but it is not rich for a country that colonised countries to scream and cry about another country wanting to colonise a close by archipelago?

So in brief, you are telling me that Britain's claim over the island is "We found it first, its ours" kind of thing...

Well to be fair, the fact the Europeans wanted all the world to be theirs for the taking and tried to take most countries by force is really not an excuse and that is why countries fought for independence.

I can see how discovering a new land in the past would have meant claiming it as yours, but I cannot see how most of you will agree that Britain has a right to claim a land so far away as theirs now, considering that from what Ive read, the place saw a rise in inhabitants only in the late 1800s (correct me if Im wrong)

Britains claim over the island indeed comes down to “we found it first” mixed with the fact that there are 3000 people living there. The fact that the rise in inhabitants only came about in the 1800s is irrelevant, the people have lived there for generations and should therefore have the right to decide who they are governed by. Remember that the islands were uninhabited before the rise in immigration. Are you saying that there is a time limit over how long people can decide who they are governed by? If the people had moved there in the 1700s, the 1500’s or the 900’s, would you support their right to self determination?

We have a right to claim a land so far away because the people living on that land want us to claim them. If they wanted to be governed by Argentina, or there was a significant split in opinion, then I might be swayed towards allowing Argentina to have some say in the matter. As it stands, Argentina have no rights at all.

Europeans might have wanted to own the world (that sort of desire is not limited just to Europeans though) and might have conquered huge stretches of land across the world, but that only means we have to deal with the world we have been left with. If we want to undo all colonialism, then we need to start by moving the vast majority of people out of North and South America and handing that land back solely to the natives. And even then, Britain will own the Falklands as the inhabitants there now are the natives due to nobody living there before.

I understand your point of view perfectly now.

I am still of the opinion that the fact that Argentina have a better claim because of territory since the land was pretty much uninhabited until the past 200 years... and immigration to the falklands in my eyes could have been just strategic to have a humanitarian approach to claiming it as british territory.

I still believe that the country closest to the source should be the country that "harvests its fruits" The fact that Argentina were themselves a colony for me (for me) is what makes them think, hey if maybe we had the independence to make our won decisions we would not have let this happen... or something like that.

Still I appreciate your time in discussing this politely (as of course this subject might be more sensitive to you than to me) although I still have my own viewpoint and I disagree with the way you and the forum in general sees this.

Drej wrote:I understand your point of view perfectly now.

I am still of the opinion that the fact that Argentina have a better claim because of territory since the land was pretty much uninhabited until the past 200 years... and immigration to the falklands in my eyes could have been just strategic to have a humanitarian approach to claiming it as british territory.

I still believe that the country closest to the source should be the country that "harvests its fruits" The fact that Argentina were themselves a colony for me (for me) is what makes them think, hey if maybe we had the independence to make our won decisions we would not have let this happen... or something like that.

Still I appreciate your time in discussing this politely (as of course this subject might be more sensitive to you than to me) although I still have my own viewpoint and I disagree with the way you and the forum in general sees this.

Do you think that Britain should have a claim over Ireland? We are closer to Ireland than the Falklands are to Argentina.

Do you think Taiwan should be ruled by mainland China? Taiwan is closer to China than the Falklands are to Argentina.

Do you think Jersey should be rules by France? Jersey is closer to France than it is to Britain.

Argentina have no rights based on distance. They might be closest but they are too far away to be able to claim solely based on being the nearest country. And even if they were only 50 miles away, they would have no rights because the population does not wish to be ruled by Argentina.

Let me put it another way. If we gave full independence to the Falkland Islands and washed our hands completely, do you think Argentina has the right to invade them, just because only 3000 people live there?

I think we should take over France, seeing as it's only about 21 miles away at the closest point.

Somebody Else's Problem wrote:I think we should take over France, seeing as it's only about 21 miles away at the closest point.

Do you really want to be classed as the same nation as French people though? If we took it over we'd have to deport them. Maybe Argentina will take them in.

Lagamorph wrote:

Somebody Else's Problem wrote:I think we should take over France, seeing as it's only about 21 miles away at the closest point.

Do you really want to be classed as the same nation as French people though? If we took it over we'd have to deport them. Maybe Argentina will take them in.

Sadly I imagine most people in this country have a little French in them anyway.

Interesting thread btw. Weirdly I've never really looked up much about the whole Falklands debate. Although there doesn't really seem to be one from what I'm learning.

Drej wrote:

Fatal Exception wrote:

Drej wrote:To be fair, the inhabitants of that place are the only ones that should really have a say.

With regards to Oil, I dont see what an archipelago close to Argentina has anything to do with the UK. The Oil should be managed by the country that is most near.

According to idiots, because there's only 3000 inhabitants they don't get to self determine.... That and they all want to be British. So because it's a British territory the oil is British too.

I dont really see how a territory close to south america can be considered british. I dont really agree with being a british colony, Thankfully Malta chose to terminate its agreement with the British empire (after pushing for integration... ) had we achieved integration, I wonder if I would have considered myself to be Birtish? I dont think so...

The difference is that the people in the Falklands are all descendants of British people. Are you?

.

jambot wrote:

Somebody Else's Problem wrote:I think we should take over France, seeing as it's only about 21 miles away at the closest point.

No! Have you seen their unemployment rate? A country full of disagreeable, unwashed spongers who hate the English? We've already got more than enough Celts to subsidise.

And worst of all they drive on the wrong side of the road.

Though it would be piss easy at least. We just have to announce an invasion and they'll surrender.

Someone at the Telegraph wrote of his Guardian article "even The Huffington Post would baulk at running it."

His latest article is written the way I'd imagine Carmine Jr from The Sopranos would write.

Drej wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Ok my last post.

It is rich for a colony to scream and cry about colonialism, but it is not rich for a country that colonised countries to scream and cry about another country wanting to colonise a close by archipelago?

So in brief, you are telling me that Britain's claim over the island is "We found it first, its ours" kind of thing...

Well to be fair, the fact the Europeans wanted all the world to be theirs for the taking and tried to take most countries by force is really not an excuse and that is why countries fought for independence.

I can see how discovering a new land in the past would have meant claiming it as yours, but I cannot see how most of you will agree that Britain has a right to claim a land so far away as theirs now, considering that from what Ive read, the place saw a rise in inhabitants only in the late 1800s (correct me if Im wrong)

Britains claim over the island indeed comes down to “we found it first” mixed with the fact that there are 3000 people living there. The fact that the rise in inhabitants only came about in the 1800s is irrelevant, the people have lived there for generations and should therefore have the right to decide who they are governed by. Remember that the islands were uninhabited before the rise in immigration. Are you saying that there is a time limit over how long people can decide who they are governed by? If the people had moved there in the 1700s, the 1500’s or the 900’s, would you support their right to self determination?

We have a right to claim a land so far away because the people living on that land want us to claim them. If they wanted to be governed by Argentina, or there was a significant split in opinion, then I might be swayed towards allowing Argentina to have some say in the matter. As it stands, Argentina have no rights at all.

Europeans might have wanted to own the world (that sort of desire is not limited just to Europeans though) and might have conquered huge stretches of land across the world, but that only means we have to deal with the world we have been left with. If we want to undo all colonialism, then we need to start by moving the vast majority of people out of North and South America and handing that land back solely to the natives. And even then, Britain will own the Falklands as the inhabitants there now are the natives due to nobody living there before.

I understand your point of view perfectly now.

I am still of the opinion that the fact that Argentina have a better claim because of territory since the land was pretty much uninhabited until the past 200 years... and immigration to the falklands in my eyes could have been just strategic to have a humanitarian approach to claiming it as british territory.

I still believe that the country closest to the source should be the country that "harvests its fruits" The fact that Argentina were themselves a colony for me (for me) is what makes them think, hey if maybe we had the independence to make our won decisions we would not have let this happen... or something like that.

Still I appreciate your time in discussing this politely (as of course this subject might be more sensitive to you than to me) although I still have my own viewpoint and I disagree with the way you and the forum in general sees this.

Proximity doesn't necessarily imply ownership. See, for example, Greek islands off the coast of Turkey, Socotra off the coast of Somalia or many South Okinawan islands, but a short distance from Taiwan. There are countless other examples. There is, obviously, a burden upon claimant states to provide proof of ownership or effective occupation in such cases and many cases, like that of the Falklands, are far from simple.

Self determination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination) is a strong factor in many disputes, particularly in the case of the Falklands. Whilst self determination is a somewhat ill-defined legal precedent, and a 'group' does not simply have the right to determine self-sovereignty (for example, I couldn't claim that my house was its own sovereign state under the principle of self-determination) there is a strong leaning in the UN, the ICG, and the general international community towards the maintenance of territorial integrity, and this is very apparent in the case of the Falklands. I realise that some of you might well say that, according to such logic, decolonisation would never have happened - and that's a valid argument - however I would argue that demographics are the key in this instance; namely the fact that the population of the Falklands are overwhelmingly British and wish to remain so, much like the population of, say, Libya or Chad were overwhelmingly Libyan/Chadian, and no longer wished to belong to the colonial order.

In general, resolution of territorial disputes have displayed a trend towards: Treaties>>>Effective Occupation/Administration>>>Historical Title/Discovery.

I'm getting a bit tired and can't really be bothered going into more detail on the matter, but its worth reading up on the principles of effectivité (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Conference_(1884)#Principle_of_Effectivity) and uti possidetis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uti_Possidetis). Whilst its perfectly reasonable to cite these principles on both sides of the argument, in my opinion, the British claims trump those of the Argentinians. Let's not forget, Britain tried to take the matter of sovereignty over the islands to international arbitration in 1947 and Argentina declined, as well as stating that they would not respect the rulings of the ICJ with regards to Argentine encroachments in the area in the 50s. Put simply, whilst the Argentines do have a valid claim to the islands (as do the UK), if the case ever went to international arbitration (which it won't) I believe the court would rule in favour of the UK.

That being said, I'm not some neo-colonialist, nor am I a nationalist. The sovereignty of the islands means strawberry float all to me.

jambot wrote:

Somebody Else's Problem wrote:I think we should take over France, seeing as it's only about 21 miles away at the closest point.

No! Have you seen their unemployment rate? A country full of disagreeable, unwashed spongers who hate the English? We've already got more than enough Celts to subsidise.

Have you seen ours? Not much better!

Falklanders have a referendum on Sunday, they're being asked: "Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current political status as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom?" Should be an overwhelming victory to maintain the status quo, doubt it'll get Argentina to shut up.

Tons of election observers are going, which is good.

Lagamorph wrote:

jambot wrote:

Somebody Else's Problem wrote:I think we should take over France, seeing as it's only about 21 miles away at the closest point.

No! Have you seen their unemployment rate? A country full of disagreeable, unwashed spongers who hate the English? We've already got more than enough Celts to subsidise.

And worst of all they drive on the wrong side of the road.

Though it would be piss easy at least. We just have to announce an invasion and they'll surrender.

Change the forumite (and/or the race) and we have some zealous pricks calling for a ban for racism.

Oh but it's jambot! Everyone loves jambot, don't they? They way he goes "BL" all the time and acts like he's better than everyone else here (which is why it's OK for him to be bigoted - he's like Internet Paxman, so he's gotta be right, right?)

Oh, jambot!

~Earl Grey~ wrote:

Lagamorph wrote:

jambot wrote:

Somebody Else's Problem wrote:I think we should take over France, seeing as it's only about 21 miles away at the closest point.

No! Have you seen their unemployment rate? A country full of disagreeable, unwashed spongers who hate the English? We've already got more than enough Celts to subsidise.

And worst of all they drive on the wrong side of the road.

Though it would be piss easy at least. We just have to announce an invasion and they'll surrender.

Change the forumite (and/or the race) and we have some zealous pricks calling for a ban for racism.

Oh but it's jambot! Everyone loves jambot, don't they? They way he goes "BL" all the time and acts like he's better than everyone else here (which is why it's OK for him to be bigoted - he's like Internet Paxman, so he's gotta be right, right?)

Oh, jambot!

Didn't jambot have a strop a while back, delete all his posts and leave the forum? Also, stop harping on about this racism gooseberry fool. It's tedious.