No you were talking about the US. Did you already forget what you said a couple posts ago?
What exactly do you mean by that if it means non-indigenous people don't have to leave? Are you now saying you don't think land should be given back?
The ridiculous hypothetical involving Pakistanis in the UK (who as far as I can tell have never asked for succession) isn't analogous to UK-Argentina story at all. If would only be analogous if Pakistanis had claimed some Island off the coast of Britain, possessed it for more than a hundred years, and then the British wanted it back now because it had oil.
The ridiculous hypothetical involving Pakistanis in the UK (who as far as I can tell have never asked for succession) isn't analogous to UK-Argentina story at all. If would only be analogous if Pakistanis had claimed some Island off the coast of Britain, possessed it for more than a hundred years, and then the British wanted it back now because it had oil.
I said nothing about the US giving all land back to the native Americans.
Then how much? And would the indigenous people be able to kick non-indigenous people out or have the exclusive right to vote?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faroe_Islands
There's nothing in the news about the UK trying to take over the Faroe Islands.
This thread is about the Malvinas. Please try to stay on topic. Thanks.
I posted that as a direct response to your own question... Not sure why you would ask a question and then complain that the answer is off-topic. If that is off topic than your question was off topic.
There is an island off of Britain that Britain doesn't have control of and Britain's not trying to control it. I don't have a problem with it either to answer your question.
I'm not surprised that you want to avoid talking about the larger issue though because it shows that you're inconsistent. When the British colonists have control over a territory you cry about the rights of the natives but for some reason in the US you are fine with colonists from all over the world having authority over local indigenous people.
Again, please try to stay on topic.
What does this have to do with the Malvinas? If it has nothing, then please try to stay on topic. Thanks.
I think you've just surpassed any level of intellectual dishonesty I've seen on this board. You can't use off-topic as a shield against posts that point out your inconsistencies. You asked me a question and I responded to it and then you claimed I was being off-topic. That is ridiculous.
Hopefully everyone besides Cow can see that you hold the UK to a standard that you don't hold the US (or probably any other country to).
The US should be giving land back to native Americans and should at the very least compensate the native Americas.
They have some reservations. Do you want them to have it all?
And do you think that British people should be able to ask immigrants to Britain to leave as well?
Is the fundamental rule underpinning all your positions that whatever screws British/white people over is good or do you have any actual underpinnings that are fair?
If non-indigenous US citizens need to leave North America, does he think that non-indigenous people everywhere should have to leave whatever country they've gone to?
I never said anything about people needing to leave. What on earth are you talking about? Even in the case of the Malvinas, I think that the residents there can remain, but sovereignty can be transferred.
However, I do believe that CoW brings up a good point. Can you please address his comment about Pakistanis in the UK? If a section of the UK wants to secede and become part of Pakistan, would you be OK with that?
And then you just kept talking about native Americans.
Infohawk, please try to stay on topic. I see no reason why native Americans are relevant to the Malvinas. I didn't ask you anything about native Americans, so please stop lying and being off topic. Thanks.
They are relevant to this thread because it shows your whole position is just based on UK-bashing (as it's always the case) and not on any objective principles that would apply equally to all countries.
In case you are genuinely confused (and not trolling as you probably are) imagine that in one thread about Christianity, a poster says that Christianity is good because all religion is good. In another thread about Islam, the poster says that Islam is bad. If someone points out the fact that they are inconsistent, it's absurd for the poster to say that it's off-topic and refuse to address it. You want to be able to have ridiculously inconsistent positions and think you can tell people to stop pointing out your inconsistencies. That's not going to happen. You're being intellectually dishonest. If you are at all intellectually honest, explain why the UK has to defer to the rights of indigenous people but the US doesn't.
Defer what rights to indigenous people? I have never said that is the sole determinative factor. Moreover, the Malvinas did not have an existing indigenous population. However, the indigenous population of Argentina/South America landed on the Malvinas first, thus effectively placing rights to Argentina over the British being the second to land there if any such claim or rights are accorded to mere landing on the island.
So rights of the indigenous are not one of your factors? Because you sure keep harping on it. Do you want to abandon that line of argument? If you don't, you'd better explain why the UK and not the US has to cede all its land in the region to indigenous populations.
Other than that you have your silly geographical argument, which is patently ridiculous. Do you think the Faroe Islands should belong to the UK? It's closer to the UK after all.
Nicholas Ridley, a stalwart rightwinger when he wasn't being a Foreign Office minister, went to the islanders 33 years ago and gave them a sensible option. Britain couldn't bear the cost of supporting and defending them any longer. Too much cash, too much redundant toil. They'd get on far better if Argentina was a helpful neighbour. Geography and commonsense dictated a peaceful solution: leaseback. That way the islanders lived their lives as before, but Buenos Aires took sovereignty in the long run. It was what Ridley and, by inference, even former prime minister Margaret Thatcher thought best.
If it's a factor, then explain why the US doesn't have to cede all its lands back to the native americans. You can't say "it's only one factor" to defeat criticisms of your position. Either retract your position or defend it. Do you notice that whenever someone kicks the legs out of one of "your factors" you claim it's not the only factor? The problem is all the legs are missing from your table. You either have to start defending your factors or concede that your entire position is wrong.I said it wasn't the sole factor. It is a factor. Please read more carefully.
The geographical argument is but one factor. The historical factors quite obviously favor Argentina. For example, the only claim that the UK can apparently give is that it was the second to land on the Malvinas. However, the first were the native South American/Argentine population. Thus, any claim or rights that arise out of the UK landing on the Malvinas are naturally accorded to the natives of South America, which would thus go to Argentina or at least an international South American organization.
I take no position on the Faroe Islands at this time. Please try to stay on topic as I don't see how the Faroe Islands are related to the Malvinas.
Did you decide if the government of Argentina needs to be dissolved and power handed back to the indigenous population? We wouldn't want to reward colonialism.
The indigenous issue is just ONE factor dude. You also have to look at the proximity issue. What? You want to point out a problem with that factor? (Like the fact that he doesn't think the Faroe Islands should go to the UK?) Then that's only one factor too and you need to go back to the indigenous issue.
The indigenous issue is just ONE factor dude. You also have to look at the proximity issue. What? You want to point out a problem with that factor? (Like the fact that he doesn't think the Faroe Islands should go to the UK?) Then that's only one factor too and you need to go back to the indigenous issue.
If it's a factor, then explain why the US doesn't have to cede all its lands back to the native americans. You can't say "it's only one factor" to defeat criticisms of your position. Either retract your position or defend it. Do you notice that whenever someone kicks the legs out of one of "your factors" you claim it's not the only factor? The problem is all the legs are missing from your table. You either have to start defending your factors or concede that your entire position is wrong.
It's astounding that you're going back to the native argument even though you just said it was only one factor before. Are you being serious right now? It's like playing a hidden ball game and one someone looks under both cups you claim that the ball is still under the other cup even though they just looked at it.
You don't see how the Faroe Islands are related? It's pretty much the analogous situation except in reverse for the UK in terms of your dumb proximity rule. It's an island that's close to them but they don't claim rights to. You don't want to address it or take a position on it because it would require you to take a pro-UK position to be consistent.
The indigenous issue is just ONE factor dude. You also have to look at the proximity issue. What? You want to point out a problem with that factor? (Like the fact that he doesn't think the Faroe Islands should go to the UK?) Then that's only one factor too and you need to go back to the indigenous issue.
Please stop being intellectually dishonest. I have not stated any position on the Faroe Islands. I barely even know anything about them, to be frank.
You are clearly trolling now. Please stop.
You barely know anything about the Falkland Islands (you keep calling them by a made up dago name) and yet, here we are 28 pages later.
I never said it was the only factor. It seems that you feel the need to make up positions for people so that you can have something to argue against. Please stop being intellectually dishonest.
And, again, the native Americans have nothing to do with the Malvinas. If you would like to discuss the native Americans, then I would be happy to do so in a thread about them.
Furthermore, I have never said that native groups of South America are automatically owed the Malvinas. That is again something that you are making up.
That's because the native argument is primarily used to support one of the Argentinian claims out of several claims which I have already discussed and supported. Essentially, the UK's only historical connection is that it was the first European power to land on the Malvinas. However, that is negated by the natives being the first to land on the Malvinas. Thus, any rights that people here have been according to the UK based on a landing are obviously belonging to Argentina or an international SA organization.
I don't really know much about the Faroe Islands at all. I would have no problem taking a pro-UK position with regard to them if I felt it was just and right. However, this is very off topic. If you have an issue with me, then please PM me instead of derailing this thread about some islands that aren't anywhere near the Malvinas.
Please try to stay on topic. I would really appreciate it.
Please stop being intellectually dishonest. I have not stated any position on the Faroe Islands. I barely even know anything about them, to be frank.
You are clearly trolling now. Please stop.
1) You have the native argument. You don't really believe in that position consistently. In reality you don't think native rights are a determining factor in the US so it's clear this is just one of those BS factors to substitute for UK-bashing. (If it isn't, feel free to explain why the US doesn't need to give up sovereignty of all territories back to the US.)
2) You have the proximity argument. You don't really believe in that position consistently. You don't think the Faroes should go to the UK despite the fact that it's closer to the UK than Iceland. Not to mention there are dozens of other actual scenarios where proximity has no bearing on control.
3) You have the colonial argument. This is the weakest of all. You yourself hate colonialism and don't think colonial claims are valid anywhere else. Again, you only like the argument here because it works against Britain.
What are you left with? Nothing? The only thing that binds these arguments together is that it works against Britain in this specific case.