I'm not the one making the claim. Have you ever heard of the concept of falsifiability? If your factual belief can't be proven wrong it's pretty much hogwash.
Yeah I really doubt Argentina can prove that. And I'm really doubting they have the spy or satellite network that could reliably place a SLBM on a sub.
The Falklands may be part of South America but they are definitely not part of Latin America.
The indigenous people left the Falklands. Do you deny that?What are you talking about? There are indigenous people still in South America and even in Argentina. And Argentina, which has many of these descendants, is making a claim and has been making a claim for quite a while.
We've been over Argentina's claims in this thread. The proximity claim doesn't explain most territorial boundaries in the world. The colonial claim is perverse. They have no inhabitants there.Can you provide a source for the fact that Argentina has no legitimate claim?
And you are allowing the US to benefit from its violent aggression against the indigenous people of America. Again, why the double-standard?You are allowing the UK to benefit from its violent aggression, but are precluding any future violent aggression from obtaining the same rights as the UK. This is hypocritical and illogical.
Isn't that what you do in the case of the US?You support UK rights that stem from violent aggression and takeover. However, now you are being a hypocrite and saying if someone does the same, then it's no longer valid. How convenient and hypocritical.
No they're all geography. They don't belong in different categories.Those were two separate and distinct issues. I am not sure why you don't know simple definitions.
The difference is it happened 150 years ago. The world has changed. You really don't see that as a difference? The US gained its territory by force too. Do you think that's okay?You want to reward UK aggression, but when faced with a similar circumstance where the UK is the victim, you then pretend that the rule you apply to the benefit of the UK is not applicable to anyone else.
Articles can state whatever they wish. A treaty violation would require proof, and there is no proof forthcoming, short of the British government coming out and announcing it, or nuking something, neither of which they will be doing.
Absolutely not. That undermines the entire purpose of a submarine fleet. Their locations and abilities are to remain as secretive as possible, it is their fundamental advantage. Your suggestion is absurd.
The treaty also provides for a comprehensive control and verification mechanism, overseen by the Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (OPANAL), based in Mexico City.
What does this have to do with you having falsifiable claims?There's room for movement. This is where you should be making your case.
There's subjectivity involved.
Obviously many disagree. However, the treaty applies to the Malvinas through the UK. The UK is a signatory.
The indigenous people left the Falklands. Do you deny that?
Why don't you understand that one colonial country can't claim the sovereign rights of a people it conquered? Do you think the natives of Canada should be able to claim the US under Canada's flag? According to your dumb logic, Canada's assumed the natives' rights and it should be able to kick out the colonials since they are represented in Canada's democracy.
We've been over Argentina's claims in this thread. The proximity claim doesn't explain most territorial boundaries in the world. The colonial claim is perverse. They have no inhabitants there.
And you are allowing the US to benefit from its violent aggression against the indigenous people of America. Again, why the double-standard?
Isn't that what you do in the case of the US?
No they're all geography. They don't belong in different categories.
The difference is it happened 150 years ago. The world has changed. You really don't see that as a difference? The US gained its territory by force too. Do you think that's okay?
What does this have to do with you having falsifiable claims?
Who cares then? You might as well tell us what your favorite color is. Why don't you talk about the facts?
The UK has the right to have nuclear weapons in international waters.
The UK has the right to have nuclear weapons in international waters.
Ok then. The indigenous South Americans left the Falkands. They have no claim to the territory nor are they claiming they do. Stop saying they do.Why would I deny something that I had to tell you a while back?
I don't deny that.Why don't you understand that natives still live and many of them live and work through Argentina?
The only reason it's a domestic issue is that the US annihilated the indigenous people. It would be ridiculous to say that the UK could make its ownership of the Falklands legitimate simply by taking over all of Argentina. But that's what you're suggesting.No. The US issue is a domestic issue. I don't see any other country involved. Can you please provide evidence for another country being involved in interest here?
No I am not saying that. If Argentina had several thousand people on an island and had possession for 150 years I would say they have the better claim. Why are you lying about? What do you have to say for yourself?Again, hand waving. If Argentina occupied a UK island, did the same things for 150 years, then the same could be said again - 'it was 150 years ago!' However, you are being hypocritical and denying this now but allowing it for the UK.
Just like the native Americans have.Moreover, the world hasn't fully changed. Argentina has maintained its protest the entire time.
Why do you feel that the US has a valid claim to its territory over Native Americans?Why do you feel that the UK can do whatever it wants, but nobody else can do the same things as the UK, wait a similar amount of time and obtain rights like the UK has?
Perhaps the UK should allow unlimited immigration to the Malvinas by Argentinians if desired then.
Anyways, please feel free to discuss this issue, I find it very interesting, but please refrain from personal attacks.
They have waived a subset of that right. In particular, they have waived the right to deploy a nuclear submarine to Latin America.
WFZs do not cover international waters (where there is freedom of the seas) or transit of nuclear missiles through space (as opposed to deployment of nuclear weapons in space).
I think I've provided over 20 links in this thread. Some are to support my positions and provide facts. Others are to stimulate discussion.
Ok then. The indigenous South Americans left the Falkands. They have no claim to the territory nor are they claiming they do. Stop saying they do.
The only reason it's a domestic issue is that the US annihilated the indigenous people. It would be ridiculous to say that the UK could make its ownership of the Falklands legitimate simply by taking over all of Argentina. But that's what you're suggesting.
No I am not saying that. If Argentina had several thousand people on an island and had possession for 150 years I would say they have the better claim. Why are you lying about? What do you have to say for yourself?
Why do you feel that the US has a valid claim to its territory over Native Americans?
Thanks for posting a link for once, but it's not on point.
Argentina is claiming that the UK is deploying a nuclear submarine to the Malvinas. Their grievance is not that it is transiting through international waters.
Your links rarely back up your outlandish claims. I can post all sorts of articles and say crazy things like, "eventually this will lead to the downfall of the UK." It doesn't mean the articles support my position.
I doubt there is a submarine base in the Falklands. They can deploy it in the international waters off of the Falklands or Argentina.
I have no idea what the immigration system is in the islands, but no developed country has 'unlimited immigration' with no checks and balances. If the law prohibits Argentinians from moving to the islands, then I disagree with that, and as you say below, I am happy to discuss the point.
Refrain from personal attacks? Yea well I would do that, but your sig uses a single quote (which has no context for me), to refer to imply the Britsh people are racist. That's a worse insult than I've used against you.
Your links rarely back up your outlandish claims. I can post all sorts of articles and say crazy things like, "eventually this will lead to the downfall of the UK." It doesn't mean the articles support my position.
They don't claim it and even if they did their claim is not the same as Argentina's claim.Of course they have a claim to the Malvinas, as the first discoverers and first to land on them. And that claim is now 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?If the UK took all of Argentina and the people become British through agreement, then the Malvinas would be British because then the UK would inherit the Argentine claims.
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.The US is a domestic issue. I don't see a second country involved, so I don't know why you keep wanting to talk about a completely different situation. I am going to assume this is just you trying to go off topic as usual.
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.What do you mean "Why are you lying about?"
Didn't say they weren't... And you know this but you're a shameless liar.Why do you feel that native Americans aren't American?
That's what they should do