Falklands War part 2?

[Infohawk]

No, but the articles provide facts that shed some light on why you have that position.

It seemed like you were claiming that backed up your points. They don't. None of the articles say that Argentina's claims are right or that it costs the UK TOO much.

 

[CanOWorms]

How do you know they're not doing that? How do you think Argentina can prove exactly where the sub is?

Via an international verification group

 

[Infohawk]

Via an international verification group

No, how can they PRESENTLY support their claim without that (something which is not going to happen).

 

[RabidMongoose]

They don't claim it and even if they did their claim is not the same as Argentina's claim.

Argentina inherited their claims because they are Argentine citizens. Thus, they claim it through Argentina.

Well, at least you're trying to be consistent but don't you think that leads to absurd consequences? I've never heard that you can take over a country's territorial claims by invading them. That is very interesting. Can you tell me where you heard that?

I never said that, you are again lying. I said if the people agree as well.

It's the same hand-waving. The domestic issue doesn't change the fact that the UK and US have both conquered lands by force. And the only reasons it is currently accepted in both cases is that a lot of time has past.

No it isn't. The US is an issue with the US. This is an issue with the UK and Argentina. The former is one country. The latter involves two countries. 1 is not the same as 2. I'm not sure how else I can tell you this if you don't know that one is not the same as two...weird.

You said I said that if Argentina invaded and occupied a UK island I would deny Argentina's claim. That was a complete lie as I had never suggested that.

That is the implication of your entire argument.

Do you now say that if Argentina invaded a UK island and occupied it against UK protest for 150 years, then it rightfully belongs to Argentina?

Didn't say they weren't... And you know this but you're a shameless liar.

That's what you seem to be implying. Native Americans are Americans. Not sure how else to say it.

Why do you hand-waive the conquering of Native Americans in this country? This is a typical anti-UK double-standard you have. When the US takes territory by force, you don't give a shit. When the UK does it to an uninhabited island you act outraged. Why can't you be consistent?

The US has domestic issues. The Malvinas is an international issue with two nations.

I'm not even sure why you're talking about native Americans since the Malvinas have no native population. This is just you going off topic again because you know that you have no argument.

 

[Infohawk]

Argentina inherited their claims because they are Argentine citizens. Thus, they claim it through Argentina.

Don't you agree you don't take over someone's claims by conquering them. Argentina is a colonial country and doesn't get to use the natives' rights. It's as stupid as Canada claiming its using its natives right to attack the US.

I said if the people agree as well.

And nobody agrees here so what the hell are you talking about?

Do you now say that if Argentina invaded a UK island and occupied it against UK protest for 150 years, then it rightfully belongs to Argentina?

If it had done that a 150 years ago, it wouldn't be the same issue. No. Do you think the USA should give back all of the territory to the native americans? If not, why not? If it did that today it would be wrong. Do you see the difference?

That's what you seem to be implying. Native Americans are Americans. Not sure how else to say it.

I never implied that. It's just your usually dirtbag technique of accusing people of being biased against minority groups to make them look bad.

The US has domestic issues. The Malvinas is an international issue with two nations.

I'm not even sure why you're talking about native Americans since the Malvinas have no native population. This is just you going off topic again because you know that you have no argument.

Still waiting for you to explain how you can hand-waive away the violent conquering of land by the US. Why is it okay for the US to do it and not the UK? You can't answer because it will expose your inconsistency.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Don't you agree you don't take over someone's claims by conquering them. Argentina is a colonial country and doesn't get to use the natives' rights. It's as stupid as Canada claiming its using its natives right to attack the US.

Mere conquering doesn't give the country the inheritance of the rights. However, if the people are part of the country, then the country inherits the rights.

I'm not sure why you're talking about Canada now. Can you please stay on topic?

And nobody agrees here so what the hell are you talking about?

What are you talking about? People are living and fine in Argentina.

If it had done that a 150 years ago, it wouldn't be the same issue. No. Do you think the USA should give back all of the territory to the native americans? If not, why not? If it did that today it would be wrong. Do you see the difference?

Native Americans are American. The Malvinas involves Argentines and British people. One is a domestic issue and the other is an international issue. Do you see the difference?

I never implied that. It's just your usually dirtbag technique of accusing people of being biased against minority groups to make them look bad.

That is the logical conclusion of your argument. Native Americans are Americans. Thus, grievances that Americans have with America are a domestic issue for America. However, I do believe that the Native Americans should receive additional compensation, but that should be worked on by Americans and not some other country.

However, the Malvinas is an international dispute between Argentina and the UK.

Still waiting for you to explain how you can hand-waive away the violent conquering of land by the US. Why is it okay for the US to do it and not the UK? You can't answer because it will expose your inconsistency.

I'm still waiting for you to understand the difference between domestic issues involving Americans and an international issue involving Argentines and British people.

But, as usual, I suspect that you will continue to be off-topic and hypocritical.

Again, you give the UK special rights from conquering something and holding it for 150 years, but refuse to give the same rights to others if they do the same. This is just more of your usual act of giving the British some sort of special status in the world where they can do anything.

 

[CanOWorms]

No, how can they PRESENTLY support their claim without that (something which is not going to happen).

Why won't it happen?

 

[CanOWorms]

It seemed like you were claiming that backed up your points. They don't. None of the articles say that Argentina's claims are right or that it costs the UK TOO much.

It seems that you don't support opinions or a poster's own analysis. It's almost as if you just want people to throw facts at each other. disagree. There is room for original material here.

 

[Infohawk]

Mere conquering doesn't give the country the inheritance of the rights. However, if the people are part of the country, then the country inherits the rights.

I'm not sure why you're talking about Canada now. Can you please stay on topic?

It's to show you how stupid your idea is. You don't inherit a people's rights by conquering them. That is perverse.

What are you talking about? People are living and fine in Argentina.

I don't see any native groups asking for the Falklands. Why would they? They didn't even live on the island.

No, I don't see the difference because native Americans are American.

So if the UK invaded Argentina, made them UK citizens, you would be okay with that? That's all it takes to make a violent conquest okay?

That is the logical conclusion of your argument.

No it isn't.

I'm still waiting for you to understand the difference between domestic issues involving Americans and an international issue involving Argentines and British people.

I don't think that taking a people over and making them citizens makes a violent conquest and genocide ok. Do you? And yet I accept that the US is now the legitimate government of America. Time has passed. The world is a different place.

 

[Infohawk]

Why won't it happen?

Since you ignored my question I'll ignore yours.

 

[Infohawk]

It seems that you don't support opinions or a poster's own analysis. It's almost as if you just want people to throw facts at each other. disagree. There is room for original material here.

BS opinions devoid of any factual support I do not support. Yes, people should discuss the facts. You are one of the few posters that seems to enjoy yelling past other posters and not having a real discussion.

 

[CanOWorms]

Since you ignored my question I'll ignore yours.

I did answer your question.

 

[CanOWorms]

BS opinions devoid of any factual support I do not support. Yes, people should discuss the facts. You are one of the few posters that seems to enjoy yelling past other posters and not having a real discussion.

Weird.

I don't think that you have an interest in discussion of politics and news. You are interested in discussing the posters of P&N.

 

[RabidMongoose]

It's to show you how stupid your idea is. You don't inherit a people's rights by conquering them. That is perverse.

I agree. You don't inherit rights from mere conquering. But if people are part of a country and involved in its democratic process, then obviously the country inherits the rights of its own people.

Anything else is perverse and basically declaring people to not even be humans.

I don't see any native groups asking for the Falklands. Why would they? They didn't even live on the island.

Argentina has native citizens and is asking for the Malvinas.

So if the UK invaded Argentina, made them UK citizens, you would be okay with that? That's all it takes to make a violent conquest okay?

If the people were fine with being British citizens.

No it isn't.

Of course it is.

I don't think that taking a people over and making them citizens makes a violent conquest and genocide ok. Do you? And yet I accept that the US is now the legitimate government of America. Time has passed. The world is a different place.

If you don't think that conquest is OK, then why do you support the illegitimate UK conquest of the Malvinas?

Again, this is an issue with Argentina and the UK. Obviously the Argentines have much more claims and stronger claims than the British, whose only claim is through illegitimate conquest.

Time has passed. So if Argentina invades an island and time passes again, would you be fine with Argentina keeping the land that it has invaded?

 

[Infohawk]

I agree. You don't inherit rights from mere conquering. But if people are part of a country and involved in its democratic process, then obviously the country inherits the rights of its own people.

Anything else is perverse and basically declaring people to not even be humans.

Maybe the problem is you don't understand the difference between individual and group rights. Natives in Argentina have individual rights, as they should. But Argentina doesn't get to benefit from the wrongful colonization of the natives' land and use those group rights in ongoing colonial disputes.

Argentina has native citizens and is asking for the Malvinas.

Those two have no connection whatsoever. Natives aren't some kind of trump card you can pull. Argentina didn't win them like they are weapons, but that's what you act like they are.

If the people were fine with being British citizens.

You don't think the natives in Argentina wouldn't prefer to have sole dominion over those territories?

Of course it is.

How so?

If you don't think that conquest is OK, then why do you support the illegitimate UK conquest of the Malvinas?

For the same reason I recognize the US as the legitimate government of the US.

Time has passed. So if Argentina invades an island and time passes again, would you be fine with Argentina keeping the land that it has invaded?

No, the UN exists now. The international community won't stand for that kind of behavior. It did a 150 years ago.

Once again: why is okay for the US to violently conquer territory and not the UK? Is it just because you have an anti-UK double-standard?

 

[Infohawk]

I did answer your question.

You explained how Argentina can PRESENTLY know where the UK's nuclear sub is and whether it has a nuke on board?

 

[RabidMongoose]

Maybe the problem is you don't understand the difference between individual and group rights. Natives in Argentina have individual rights, as they should. But Argentina doesn't get to benefit from the wrongful colonization of the natives' land and use those group rights in ongoing colonial disputes.

No, I understand the difference between individual and group rights. However, the groups are now in Argentina, work in the Argentinian democracy, and thus Argentina is attempting to claim their rights. Moreover, their rights here is but one right among a plurality of rights that Argentina has with regard to the Malvinas.

Those two have no connection whatsoever. Natives aren't some kind of trump card you can pull. Argentina didn't win them like they are weapons, but that's what you act like they are.

Of course there is a connection. Argentine citizens can exercise their rights through their government, as they are doing. Stop dehumanizing people.

You don't think the natives in Argentina wouldn't prefer to have sole dominion over those territories?

I would find that to be more acceptable than the UK owning the territories. However, the natives are just one part of the Argentine claims.

How so?

Because it is.

For the same reason I recognize the US as the legitimate government of the US.

But the UK conquest is that of another nation that is still in existence today.

No, the UN exists now. The international community won't stand for that kind of behavior. It did a 150 years ago.

The international community isn't standing for the UK behavior either. Look at the South American position.

Once again: why is okay for the US to violently conquer territory and not the UK? Is it just because you have an anti-UK double-standard?

It's not OK for the US to conquer territory. Any disputes should be handled with the nation that has grievances.

As such, the UK should also handle the Argentine grievances.

Why are you placing special status to the UK? And why are you dehumanizing people? Is this because you have a non-Europeans double-standard?

 

[CanOWorms]

You explained how Argentina can PRESENTLY know where the UK's nuclear sub is and whether it has a nuke on board?

Yes. A third party, such as the treaty's verification mechanism, can verify the status of the nuclear submarine in question and relay the results to Argentina.

 

[Infohawk]

Yes. A third party, such as the treaty's verification mechanism, can verify the status of the nuclear submarine in question and relay the results to Argentina.

I'm not saying CAN. I'm talking about RIGHT NOW. Right now, Argentina doesn't have any means to know where the UK's nuclear weapons are in the sea.

 

[CanOWorms]

I'm not saying CAN. I'm talking about RIGHT NOW. Right now, Argentina doesn't have any means to know where the UK's nuclear weapons are in the sea.

Yes, that's the point.

 

[Infohawk]

Because it is.

I guess you're not serious about discussing that issue.

It's not OK for the US to conquer territory. Any disputes should be handled with the nation that has grievances.

What if there is no country left? Does that make it okay? Should the US cede back all its conquered territory to the native Americans the way you want the UK to cede the Falklands back to Argentina.

Why are you placing special status to the UK?

I don't. I apply the same standard to them as the US. I recognize that past actions are unacceptable by present day standards but recognize present territorial boundaries.

And why are you dehumanizing people?

How have I dehumanized people? If anything I've shown the utmost respect for native populations. I've recognized they've been recognized by colonial powers and colonists. At the same time, unlike you, I don't treat them as pawns in ongoing colonial countries games.

 

[Infohawk]

Yes, that's the point.

OK, so maybe you shouldn't take Argentina's word that it knows where the UK's nukes are. It's pure speculation.

 

[CanOWorms]

OK, so maybe you shouldn't take Argentina's word that it knows where the UK's nukes are. It's pure speculation.

I don't believe that to be Argentina's position. Argentina is claiming that the UK is deploying a submarine to the area.

 

[RabidMongoose]

I guess you're not serious about discussing that issue.

What if there is no country left? Does that make it okay? Should the US cede back all its conquered territory to the native Americans the way you want the UK to cede the Falklands back to Argentina.

I don't. I apply the same standard to them as the US. I recognize that past actions are unacceptable by present day standards but recognize present territorial boundaries.

How have I dehumanized people? If anything I've shown the utmost respect for native populations. I've recognized they've been recognized by colonial powers and colonists. At the same time, unlike you, I don't treat them as pawns in ongoing colonial countries games.

There really are no significant issues with modern territorial boundaries with regard to the Malvinas. It is not complicated to transfer sovereignty from the UK to the Argentines. We're talking about small islands thousands of miles away from the UK and close to Argentina with only 3000 people on them.

So if you finally agree that conquest is not legitimate, then there's really no reason why the UK should have the Malvinas. Transfer of sovereignty here is probably the easiest in the entire world. There really is no barrier here to do what is right and just.

The UK has no geographical or continental shelf contiguous to the Malvinas. The UK has no historical connections to the Malvinas. The Malvinas are very isolated from the UK. Argentina is not some oppressive power, it is a vibrant democracy.

So if you really do feel that violent occupation is not legitimate, then there's really no reason why what is probably the easiest transfer of sovereignty in the world shouldn't be done.

Moreover, a transition phase for sovereignty could be accomplished as well. This is probably one of the easiest issues in the world to solve if you actually don't dehumanize people, recognize that conquest is not appropriate, and are willing to do what is just and right.

 

[Infohawk]

I don't believe that to be Argentina's position. Argentina is claiming that the UK is deploying a submarine to the area.

So what? Of course if Argentina is saber-rattling the UK is going to defend its territory.