# Here We Go Again



## Sukerkin (Jan 3, 2013)

It would seem that we get to see once more the desperate measures a politician will take when home news is bad:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20896050

I truly hope that the Argentine President does not mean to press ahead with the actions her sabre rattling are going to lead to but I fear she is painting herself into a corner.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20897675

The British Prime Minister has made it clear on every occasion that no amount of rhetoric (some with dubious historical accuracy) is going to change the fact that the Falkland Islanders do not want to be Argentine.  Until they do, then military action is the only course that will make Kirchner's political fantasy a reality.  That didn't turn out so well for the Argentine military last time, a bit of history she would do well to remember.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 3, 2013)

It would be nice if people realised that the Falklands aren't a colony and can't be legally handed over to anyone. The only thing the UK does for them is help with foreign policy (which basically means that Falkland Islander can use British embassies etc when abroad and the UK will look after Falkland Islanders rights when abroad) and it's defence as it's only a small place. The Falkland Islanders have their own government which will decide who if anyone they want to 'belong' to. Basically they do their own thing, we just defend their right to do that.
http://www.falklands.gov.fk/preside...on-to-talk-to-people-of-the-falkland-islands/

_"Member of the Legislative Assembly Mike Summers yesterday closed his address to the Committee by saying:_
_&#8220;I have a letter from the Government of the Falkland Islands, which invites the Government of the Republic of Argentina to sit down and listen to the views of the people of the Falkland Islands, and enter into a dialogue, designed to find ways to co-operate in matters of mutual interest, and to preserve the environment of the South West Atlantic to the benefit of future generations of Falkland Islanders and Argentines, as we did before the on-set of sanctions by Argentina against our people. I invite the Argentine delegation to allow me to approach their table in order to hand over the letter&#8221;_
_Unable to reach President Kirchner, MLA Summers attempted to hand the letter to the Argentine Foreign Minister Hector Timerman. Timerman refused to accept the letter._
_MLA Gavin Short, spokesperson for the Legislative Assembly said:_
_&#8220;We are incredibly disappointed that the President of Argentina refused to accept an invitation from the Falklands Island Government to sit down and discuss the Falkland Islands._
_&#8220;This is representative of the Argentine Government&#8217;s policy towards the Falkland Islands people &#8211; to ignore us, to deny our human rights, and to deny our rights as a people to determine their own future.&#8221;

_I doubt the Argentinians can do anything militarily, the government may not even las long enough to start.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17576856


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 3, 2013)

Aye, I agree - indeed I think I have also used that report you link to at the end there as an illustration that the Argentine government, most specifically it's President, seems to be hanging by a slender thread :nods:.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 3, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> Aye, I agree - indeed I think I have also used that report you link to at the end there as an illustration that the Argentine government, most specifically it's President, seems to be hanging by a slender thread :nods:.



I hope the Argentinian people won't be fooled by her and let themselves be dragged into something disastrous. I assume she knows that the Falkland Islanders won't won't to become Argentinians because she's going to be very stuck if they actually said yes! Taking the Falklands won't help Argentina's situation at all, far from it as they would have to take on more expense. The oil and mineral rights down there are at the moment just 'rights', nothing if flowing or being mined yet, it still requires a lot of investment. the big international companies aren't going to be willing to invest in Argentina if it's not stable.
The UK has a decent sized garrison down there, nuclear subs patrol, with the Afghan war being primarily a land based one the Navy gets to play down there. I wouldn't recommend invasion again. Even with Afghan we still have enough troops to cope with that.


----------



## GrandmasterP (Jan 3, 2013)

Playing Argentina away is an easy win for us.
Argie tank has twelve reverse gears and two forward (in case the enemy attacks from behind) and the regimental colours of their special forces is a white flag.


----------



## granfire (Jan 3, 2013)

GrandmasterP said:


> Playing Argentina away is an easy win for us.
> Argie tank has twelve reverse gears and two forward (in case the enemy attacks from behind) and the regimental colours of their special forces is a white flag.



ROFLMAO!!!

now that was mean of you to say!
(I was expecting a comment on undergarment color though)


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 3, 2013)

While a good many of the troops who invaded the Falklands were conscripts, poorly trained and led they did show a great deal of bravery against the professional British troops, their spec forces though at the time weren't to  be underestimated , they also had some very fanatical officers intent of truning the Falklands into the same hell hole that Argentina was at the time. The Argentinian air force did a good job from their point of view.


----------



## arnisador (Jan 3, 2013)

Do the right thing, U.K.! Quit hanging on to a piece of what should surely be Argentina. Settle this!


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 3, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Do the right thing, U.K.! Quit hanging on to a piece of what should surely be Argentina. Settle this!




Actually we would have got rid of it years ago but the Falkland Islands don't want to leave their islands and they don't want to leave the protection of the UK. It's NOT A COLONY, it has it's own government which is democratically elected by the Islanders, it would be best you talked to them about being Argentinians. Actually they are having a vote soon on being completely independant, Britain will support that as it would support them if they wanted to be Argentinian. As Cameron said  'It's up to the Islanders what they want and do', I trust you would support that or are you keen they become an Argentinian colony instead of an independent country? 
As an American one would assume you had sympathy for a people being who and what they wanted rather than being passed around like slaves. The *Falkland Islanders have every right to decide for themselves what they want to do, why can't people respect that.*

On that basis when is America giving up it's foreign territories and allowing the people living there to become independent?


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 3, 2013)

Arni, unless you are joking and just missed off the smiley, don't make us draw out the history of the place again - we did that not long ago I think.  In short, geographical proximity has nothing to do with 'ownership' of a piece of land once it is occupied.  

The Argentinians have never had a legal claim to the Falklands; that's why they can't simply settle this in the international courts.


----------



## arnisador (Jan 3, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> Arni, unless you are joking and just missed off the smiley, don't make us draw out the history of the place again - we did that not long ago I think.



Sorry! There are so many political issues with two or more sides--I forgot that this one was the exception! I'm sure all right-thinking people will agree with you.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 3, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> legal claim



How does plopping guns and troops on a plot of land, killing resistors, and stealing from the survivors constitute a claim of ownership?  Oh yeah, that's Colonialism isn't it!


----------



## Tgace (Jan 3, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> How does plopping guns and troops on a plot of land, killing resistors, and stealing from the survivors constitute a claim of ownership?  Oh yeah, that's Colonialism isn't it!



That's human history...should I pack up my family and return to Europe?

Of course im such a mutt i wouldn't know what country to return to.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 3, 2013)

What is a plopping gun? 

Sigh, people should look at the actual hisotry of the Falklan Islands before passing an opinion on it. it could just as easily belong to the French or the Spainish although they islands were discovered by an Englishman and explored by another. There never were any 'native's of the Falklands to be resisting, nor was anything stolen from them, you'd have to see the place to realise there is nothing to steal! 

It would in the UK's interest to actually palm the Falklands off on someone, it costs an absolute fortune and gives little if anything in return. It has cost of a lot of British lives and is still doing so, many service personnel still suffer from their wounds both mental and physical however it was something that had to be done. the Falkland Islands were invaded, the Islandrs asked for help and we couldn't ignore that, we could of I suppose but we didn't. Wars such as Iraq and afghanistan have been started with less justification. 

What do people think Argentina wants the Falklands for? To be a colony of course and what will they do with the people who live there? Replace them with Argentinians, they won't leave them there, the islanders will be relocated. If they are lucky they will escpae to the UK if not perhaps they will just disappear.
While arguing over the Islands no one seems to care about the Islanders and what they want. This surprises me about the Americans, I thought they would want the Falkland Islanders to have independence not be handed over to be a colony...which they aren't now.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 3, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Sorry! There are so many political issues with two or more sides--I forgot that this one was the exception! I'm sure all right-thinking people will agree with you.



Possibly the ones conversant with the history of the place and the present interpretation of the applicable law.  Please look it up yourself and decide what you think for I'm not going to argue with you about it.  

Recall my New Years resolution about not getting het up about things that don't matter?  Whilst the future of the Falklands and it's residents does matter, of course, I am not going to provide a sparring partner to argue over what is already clear.  If you don't agree with me, that is absolutely fine.  You are wrong but it is fine .


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 3, 2013)

Tgace said:


> That's human history...should I pack up my family and return to Europe?
> 
> Of course im such a mutt i wouldn't know what country to return to.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2



Good point.  I totally understand this, but I think it's important to point out that there is a large contradiction here.  *I* do not establish my property rights by force.  Maybe in a better future, we can expect governments to follow the same restriction.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 3, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Good point.  I totally understand this, but I think it's important to point out that there is a large contradiction here.  *I* do not establish my property rights by force.  Maybe in a better future, we can expect governments to follow the same restriction.



You don't need to. Your ancestors already did it for you. So did mine. Being of Scottish ancestry establishing property rights by force is something of a family tradition.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 3, 2013)

Dirty Dog said:


> You don't need to. Your ancestors already did it for you. So did mine. Being of Scottish ancestry establishing property rights by force is something of a family tradition.



If my ancestors took property by force does that excuse the same behavior for myself? For my society?


----------



## Tgace (Jan 3, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> If my ancestors took property by force does that excuse the same behavior for myself? For my society?



The Falklands people have been living there for quite a while now..does Argentina have a right to take it from them? Does the UK have the right to protect them?

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tgace (Jan 3, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Good point.  I totally understand this, but I think it's important to point out that there is a large contradiction here.  *I* do not establish my property rights by force.  Maybe in a better future, we can expect governments to follow the same restriction.



No...the government enforces your property rights by force for you. Legal force. Then, if that's ignored, ultimately REAL force.....

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 3, 2013)

Tgace said:


> The Falklands people have been living there for quite a while now..does Argentina have a right to take it from them? Does the UK have the right to protect them?
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



No and Yes.  I don't think the UK has the duty to protect them however, but it's not really my place to make that judgement.  There is nothing wrong with one group of people paying another group of people paying for protection.  If they pay taxes to the UK for protection, well that arrangement isn't necessarily voluntary.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 3, 2013)

Tgace said:


> No...the government enforces your property rights by force for you. Legal force. Then, if that's ignored, ultimately REAL force.....
> 
> Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2



Do property rights exist in the absence of "legal" force?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 3, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Do property rights exist in the absence of "legal" force?



They exist but are not enforced with out the threat of force


----------



## Tgace (Jan 3, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> They exist but are not enforced with out the threat of force



Yup.

What's "yours" is only yours if you have the ability to prevent someone else from taking it...or the means to punish/get compensation if it is taken. You either defend it by force...by force of law...or through ethics/religion.

That force is codified in law. You are allowed to use force to protect property. Not deadly force as a rule...untill life (vs just property) is threatened.

Animals mark out their territory and defend it...were not all that different. But people are amongst the few creatures that can respect property rights through things like concepts, or ethics. When some form of enforcement of those agreed upon ethics breaks down what do think is gonna happen?

Easy answer...check history.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 3, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> They exist but are not enforced with out the threat of force



First of all, I apologize for the thread drift, but I think this subject relates to the topic at hand.  Especially, when we consider the deep philosophical underpinnings of what is happening here.

That said, I think it's important that we acknowledge that property rights exist in the absence of force.  We may need to use force to ward off the initiation of force against our property rights, but that does not create property rights. Property is a rational extension of the individuals ownership of the self.  Therefore, force does not create property.  Force can defend property, or take it.

How does this relate to this situation?  I think it gives people a different lens in which to view it.  We have two groups of people who claim the "legal" right to initiate force over a piece of real estate.  One group of people is more powerful than they other, therefore the "right" to that territory "belongs" to the more powerful group.  Is this the mechanism we want to "bestow" property rights in perpetuity, or can we look for a more reasonable and rational alternative?  What are the consequences of allowing a powerful group of people the "right" to initiate force and violate property rights?  These are the larger philosophic themes that are highlighted by this situation.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 3, 2013)

> Property is a rational extension of the individuals ownership of the self.




What keeps someone else from enslaving you or killing you?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 3, 2013)

Tgace said:


> What keeps someone else from enslaving you or killing you?



Force.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 3, 2013)

...don't get me wrong, at it's root I agree with you. The "problem" with the definition of property these days is that the government seems to keep getting more and more power to TELL us what is or isn't ours. The whole idea of our Constitution was to set limits. Our politicians seem to have pushing those limits as their life mission. Usually via the commerce clause. 

But back to the issue at hand. At some point you loose your right to property if you fail to enforce it. How far back should a nation/state be able to reach in their claim to property? The Falklands have been under Brit control in one way or another since the 1700's. What "right" do today's Argentinians think they have to it? Should we give back the US to the Native Americans and hie off back to where we came from? I came from here. The people currently in the Falklands came form there.


----------



## pgsmith (Jan 3, 2013)

> That said, I think it's important that we acknowledge that property rights exist in the absence of force.


That is irrational and imaginary. I own property. I do not own property through some imaginary concept. I own property because I have a deed to it which will hiold up in a court of law (force). If I did not have said deed, someone else would win the court case and kick me off of my land (force). 

Concepts are wonderful things to talk about, but do not actually carry any weight in the real world. The Falkland Islands is a great example. THe people living their are the only people that have lived there. They did not displace any native peoples, and they've been living there for quite some time. However, the Argentinian government says they have no right to do so, and will force them to become Argentinians. The Islanders refused and asked Britain to defend them, which it did. So, who's acknowledging any sort of property rights, and what property rights would there be in the absence of force?


----------



## Tgace (Jan 3, 2013)

> Is this the mechanism we want to "bestow" property rights in perpetuity, or can we look for a more reasonable and rational alternative?



That's based on the premise that all humans involved will be reasonable and rational....you dont see the problem in that idea??


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 3, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> First of all, I apologize for the thread drift, but I think this subject relates to the topic at hand. Especially, when we consider the deep philosophical underpinnings of what is happening here.
> 
> That said, I think it's important that we acknowledge that property rights exist in the absence of force. We may need to use force to ward off the initiation of force against our property rights, but that does not create property rights. Property is a rational extension of the individuals ownership of the self. Therefore, force does not create property. Force can defend property, or take it.
> 
> How does this relate to this situation? I think it gives people a different lens in which to view it. We have two groups of people who claim the "legal" right to initiate force over a piece of real estate. One group of people is more powerful than they other, therefore the "right" to that territory "belongs" to the more powerful group. Is this the mechanism we want to "bestow" property rights in perpetuity, or can we look for a more reasonable and rational alternative? What are the consequences of allowing a powerful group of people the "right" to initiate force and violate property rights? These are the larger philosophic themes that are highlighted by this situation.



I'm not sure who you think has taken the protery by force in this case.

so, a potted history ... the Islands were unihabited when first discovered by Europeans, the French settled there in 1764 then the English joined them in 1766. Later the Spainish attacked and threw the English off but* a peace treaty meant the English came back and the Spainish left.* The British authorities withdrew from there during the American Civil War but maintained 'ownership', they came back shortly afterwards to rejoin the settlers who had stayed . The Argentinians claim on the Islands actually dates to when they themselves were a colony of Spain.

The Falklands doesn't pay taxes to the UK, they pay their own to their own government. It should be noted that a small amount of Argentinians have actually moved there, settled and become Falkland Islanders giving up their Argentinian nationality. 

again people seem to be ignoring what the Falkland Islanders want, most have been there for many generations, they didn't displace anyone, haven't killed anyone for the land. However the Argentinians killed and tortured islanders when they invaded on a very frail argument that the Islands were theirs. If it were anyone other than the Falklanders Islands it could have been the Dutch, the French, the Spanish or the British but not the Argentinians.


The Falklands belong to the Falkland islanders, no one else why do people find that hard to accept, that they are their own people in their own country, Britain is honour bound to defend them from invaders, we don't run the country, we don't take money from them, we just defend them, it has cost us lives and a great deal of money. If they want total independence they will get get it. As the Prime Minister says it's up to the Falkland Islanders to decide for themselves what they want and we will stand by their decisions, whats so hard about evryone else leaving them be?

The Falkland Islands is a hard country to make a living in, the Islanders have been there for centuries making the best of what's there, don't they deserve to have their wishes upheld?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 3, 2013)

Tgace said:


> ...don't get me wrong, at it's root I agree with you. The "problem" with the definition of property these days is that the government seems to keep getting more and more power to TELL us what is or isn't ours. The whole idea of our Constitution was to set limits. Our politicians seem to have pushing those limits as their life mission. Usually via the commerce clause.
> 
> But back to the issue at hand. At some point you loose your right to property if you fail to enforce it. How far back should a nation/state be able to reach in their claim to property? The Falklands have been under Brit control in one way or another since the 1700's. What "right" do today's Argentinians think they have to it? Should we give back the US to the Native Americans and hie off back to where we came from? I came from here. The people currently in the Falklands came form there.



We can't really go back and unravel the tangled mess of property rights, but we can use this situation to achieve some clarity about what property actually is.  This is important, IMO, because we could use this clarity to avoid these situations in the future and perhaps make the world a better place.  At the very least, we have a strong case for limiting the initiation for force (aka the government) in society.  

I think eventually the UK is going to have to cut the Falklands loose.  Maybe they can arm the Islanders to the teeth so they can give the Argentines a pause.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 3, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> We can't really go back and unravel the tangled mess of property rights, but we can use this situation to achieve some clarity about what property actually is. This is important, IMO, because we could use this clarity to avoid these situations in the future and perhaps make the world a better place. At the very least, we have a strong case for limiting the initiation for force (aka the government) in society.
> 
> *I think eventually the UK is going to have to cut the Falklands loose.* Maybe they can arm the Islanders to the teeth so they can give the Argentines a pause.



I really think I'm wasting my time trying to explain things here! The Falklands Islands run themselves, they have their own government, they have their own taxes, they have their own police, they have their own schools, they are *not a bloody colony *that we can cut loose. Which bit of the fact that the Falkland Islanders don't want to cut us loose don't you get? They are hanging on to us! In this current economic climate heavens knows we could do without keeping a garrison on there but we do because the Falkland Islanders want us to. It's their choice not ours, We honour their choice at great cost to ourselves. We get nothing from this relationship with them. There's still no oil or minerals giving any revenue so don't say it's that.

The Falklands want to stay British, do you suggest we cut their throats and leave them to the wolves to finish off? It would be in our interests to do so but we won't for as long as they want to stay British we'll have them. Our government is encouraging them to be totally independent but we'll see, it's up to the Islanders in the end.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 3, 2013)

pgsmith said:


> That is irrational and imaginary. I own property. I do not own property through some imaginary concept. I own property because I have a deed to it which will hold up in a court of law (force). If I did not have said deed, someone else would win the court case and kick me off of my land (force).



I disagree.  I think your deed is an imaginary grant of property from an institution that claims to have the right to initiate force against you if it so chooses.  That deed does nothing to protect you because it is the product of the ever changing landscape of laws that could suddenly swing against your interests.  On the other hand, the concept of property is very real.  For example, do you own your kidneys?  Do you have a deed for them?  Of course not, but you own them nonetheless.  Property is an extension of rational thinking exactly akin to 2+2=4.  It's abstract, but it still exists.



pgsmith said:


> Concepts are wonderful things to talk about, but do not actually carry any weight in the real world.



This is nonsense.



pgsmith said:


> The Falkland Islands is a great example. THe people living their are the only people that have lived there. They did not displace any native peoples, and they've been living there for quite some time. However, the Argentinian government says they have no right to do so, and will force them to become Argentinians. The Islanders refused and asked Britain to defend them, which it did. So, who's acknowledging any sort of property rights, and what property rights would there be in the absence of force?



There is nothing wrong with one group of people asking another for protection.  It would be great if we could create a world where this wasn't needed.  It would be great if the Islanders could be self sufficient.  I'm skeptical of any claims of altruism on the part of Britain though.  I think there is more to this story.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 3, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> I really think I'm wasting my time trying to explain things here! The Falklands Islands run themselves, they have their own government, they have their own taxes, they have their own police, they have their own schools, they are *not a bloody colony *that we can cut loose. Which bit of the fact that the Falkland Islanders don't want to cut us loose don't you get? They are hanging on to us! In this current economic climate heavens knows we could do without keeping a garrison on there but we do because the Falkland Islanders want us to. It's their choice not ours, We honour their choice at great cost to ourselves. We get nothing from this relationship with them. There's still no oil or minerals giving any revenue so don't say it's that.
> 
> The Falklands want to stay British, do you suggest we cut their throats and leave them to the wolves to finish off? It would be in our interests to do so but we won't for as long as they want to stay British we'll have them. Our government is encouraging them to be totally independent but we'll see, it's up to the Islanders in the end.



I'll take your word for it then.  If I had to choose between Britain and Argentina, I would pick Britain.  From what you are saying, it seems like an expensive one sided relationship though.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 3, 2013)

The conspiracy theories again, there must be more to the story, of course, dear me, it couldn't just be that the British people get really really annoyed when the Argies invade peaceful people now could it? it couldn't be that legally Britain is obliged to defend the Islands? It's as simple as that, we are obliged to do it by law, it's a territory under our protection, literally. If there's something we could get back for it I'm sure we would, there's nought for owt as they say but so far we've had nothing back sadly. The oil, gas and mineral rights thing looked good but it's not likely to have any effect for us.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 3, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> The conspiracy theories again...The oil, gas and mineral rights thing looked good but it's not likely to have any effect for us.



http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...slands-seen-tripling-u-k-reserves-energy.html



> [h=1]Oil Grab in Falkland Islands Seen Tripling U.K. Reserves: Energy[/h]
> Thirty years after Margaret Thatcher fought a 74-day war with Argentina over the Falkland Islands, the prospect of an oil boom is reviving tensions.
> Oil explorers are targeting 8.3 billion barrels in the waters around the islands this year, three times the U.K.&#8217;s reserves. Borders & Southern Petroleum Plc (BOR) will drill the Stebbing prospect next month, one of three Falkland wells that Morgan Stanley ranks among the world&#8217;s top 15 offshore prospects this year. Meanwhile, Rockhopper Exploration Plc (RKH) is seeking $2 billion from a larger oil company to develop the Sea Lion field, the islands&#8217; first economically viable oil find.




So, yeah, I doubt any claims of altruism.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 3, 2013)

I didn't say it was altruism, you did, I said we have a legal obligation to defend them and yes it is an expensive one sided relationship, it's the cost of our colonial past. 
As for the oil and mineral rights they are still just that nothing more, the President of Argentina's husband negotiated a deal with the UK and the Falklands so that Argentina would get half of whatever there was, the President cancelled that agreement. there is a lot of very odd things happening in Argentina at the moment.
http://southernpacificreview.com/2012/03/30/what-is-argentina-doing/


----------



## granfire (Jan 3, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> I didn't say it was altruism, you did, I said we have a legal obligation to defend them and yes it is an expensive one sided relationship, it's the cost of our colonial past.
> As for the oil and mineral rights they are still just that nothing more, the President of Argentina's husband negotiated a deal with the UK and the Falklands so that Argentina would get half of whatever there was, the President cancelled that agreement. there is a lot of very odd things happening in Argentina at the moment.
> http://southernpacificreview.com/2012/03/30/what-is-argentina-doing/



don't cry for me Argentina?

(lots of blond blue eyed people? But of course...a lot of them immigrated after May 9th 1945 - actually before that, too)

was that country ever stable?


----------



## Carol (Jan 4, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> I didn't say it was altruism, you did, I said we have a legal obligation to defend them and yes it is an expensive one sided relationship, it's the cost of our colonial past.
> As for the oil and mineral rights they are still just that nothing more, the President of Argentina's husband negotiated a deal with the UK and the Falklands so that Argentina would get half of whatever there was, the President cancelled that agreement. there is a lot of very odd things happening in Argentina at the moment.
> http://southernpacificreview.com/2012/03/30/what-is-argentina-doing/



Can we say right wing or does that get us in trouble?   

Nestor negotiated the agreement when he was president but CFK cancelled it when she assumed office.   Nestor laid the ground work for CFK's power grabs and she's trying to drum up support for her aggressive steps by appealing to the hardcore nationalists in country.  Las Islas Malvinas is not an archipelago, nor a community, nor does it consist of flesh and blood.  Its a political football, a rallying point, a token, a yantra.  The fact that the Faulkland Islanders themselves speak English, maintain a largely British culture, and perhaps most importantly --- want to remain part of the UK --- is being ignored by CFK and her lot.

CFK has decided to take her nationalism quest in to the international media by taking out an advert in the UK media where she writes an 
open letter to David Bannon carboning the Secretary General of the UN.  A lot of attention has been paid to that letter.  And very little attention has been paid to this response by the Falklands themselves.

Aye, there sure is colonialism going on.  But its not being initiated by the UK.


----------



## arnisador (Jan 4, 2013)

And it's not like the U.K. has been provocative. From 18 Dec.: 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...izabeth-Land-as-gift-for-Diamond-Jubilee.html



> The new name is likely to increase tension with Argentina, already simmering    because of its long-standing claim on the Falkland Islands.
> 
> 
> Argentina does not recognise Britain's sovereignty of the British Antarctic    Territory, and has a counter-claim that overlaps Britain's territory.



The Argentinian papers have been unamused. So, the U.K. made changes after the Falklands War to increase the appearance of their innocence in continuing to claim a piece of land that by every geographical measure should be part of Argentina. The should do the right thing--and turn it over to the Argentinians in a negotiated way, as they have done in the Far East.


----------



## granfire (Jan 4, 2013)

arnisador said:


> And it's not like the U.K. has been provocative. From 18 Dec.:
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...izabeth-Land-as-gift-for-Diamond-Jubilee.html
> 
> 
> ...



geographic?

The land does not give a rip what flag flies above.

And the people are not Argentine. Have not been Argentine, and don't want to either. 

What's next? Bhutan is geographically like China? Northern Ireland Irish?
Alaska Canadian? 

A short history...nothing screams 'ARGENTINA' there....except, they are close.
(according to that logic, the Canaries ought to be something African, not Spain, and the Channel Islands French...)


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 4, 2013)

For those that have strong (if unsupportable) ideas about how the poor Argentine government is full of Angelic Light and deserve a cookie in the shape of the Falkland Islands, here is the URL for the UK Foreign Office.  Feel free to talk to them about any brilliant diplomatic ideas you have:

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/foreign-commonwealth-office

Be sure to read this link first as it contains pertinent information as to the official position of the British government on the matter:

https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/supporting-the-falkland-islanders-right-to-self-determination


----------



## GrandmasterP (Jan 4, 2013)

There be oil round them thar Falklands by all accounts maybe that's why Johnny Argie is sniffing round again.
He's on a hiding to nothing if he moves beyond sabre rattling though and possibly knows that.


----------



## pgsmith (Jan 4, 2013)

> For example, do you own your kidneys? Do you have a deed for them? Of course not, but you own them nonetheless. Property is an extension of rational thinking exactly akin to 2+2=4. It's abstract, but it still exists.


  If that were the case, then abortions would be legal right?
  You have a bizarre way of looking at things. Do you really think that if we all hold hands and sing kumbaya, everything will work out to the good?  By the way, you only own your kidneys because their is someone *forcing* others to leave them in your body. China has a large problem right now with illegal organ harvesting. If there were no laws preventing it, someone could take you out and take your kidneys for fun and profit.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 4, 2013)

arnisador said:


> Sorry! There are so many political issues with two or more sides--I forgot that this one was the exception! I'm sure all right-thinking people will agree with you.


Maybe we should step in and help Ireland break free of British control. After all, they don't want it.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 4, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Do property rights exist in the absence of "legal" force?



No. 
That was simple...


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 4, 2013)

arnisador said:


> The Argentinian papers have been unamused. So, the U.K. made changes after the Falklands War to increase the appearance of their innocence in continuing to claim a piece of land that by every geographical measure should be part of Argentina. The should do the right thing--and turn it over to the Argentinians in a negotiated way, as they have done in the Far East.



Geography has nothing to do with it.
Or are you going to suggest that the US ought to turn Puerto Rico over to the Dominican Republic?
The Netherlands should turn over Aruba, Bonaire and Curacao to Venezuala?
Should we turn Alaska over to Russia?
Does Mexico get ownership ot Texas? OK, well maybe that one would be ok... (Kidding! Put down that Scarey Assault Weapon!)


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 4, 2013)

Touch Of Death said:


> Maybe we should step in and help Ireland break free of British control. After all, they don't want it.



I think the less said about Americans helping the terrorists there the better. Look at Noraid and see what they are funding.

the argentinians have never had a claim on the Falklands, the Spanish claimed it when Argentina was one of their colonies, the French claimed it, it's a toss up whether the Dutch or the British actually found it, the British certainly explored it. The only time Argentininas had their people on the islands was when they invaded and were killing and torturing the natives ie the Falklands Islanders who are the descendants of the only settlers to have stayed there all these centruires, the Spainish having given up it's claim and left along with their settlers who were never Argentinian.

Will the US be giving up Hawaii any time soon or allowing it independence?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 4, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> Will the US be giving up Hawaii any time soon or allowing it independence?



Good question and I think it has similar issues with the Falkland situation.  There are some key differences though.  The Hawaiian Monarchy was overthrown by a group of businessmen who wanted to have the archipelago annexed by the US.  The coup was organized and backed by the US, but a change in policy left the island chain in limbo for a few years.  When the administration changed and foreign policy turned favorable, Hawaii was annexed and became a territory of the US.  There was (and still is) a large group of people who never wanted to be part of the US.  

The US government has no interest in letting Hawaiians have their own nation, however.  The archipelago is too important for this government's foreign policy.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 4, 2013)

I'm not sure about it being similiar because the only violence offered in the Falklands was by the argentininas 30 years ago. If anyone does have a prior claim to the Islands it would be Spain not Argentina, however Spain signed the Islands over to the British. The Argentinians have never had a legal or even moral claim on the Islands. the Falkland Islanders want to stay British, if that's not possible they want to be independant, the argentinians want the Falklands to be a colony, they will chuck the Islanders off and fill it with their own people. That cannot be right in anyones thinking.


----------



## GrandmasterP (Jan 4, 2013)

Dirty Dog said:


> No.
> That was simple...



......
Property rights enshrined in statute exist in the absence of legal force.
Where would they go?
Enforcing such rights on the other hand.....


----------



## Tgace (Jan 4, 2013)

How far back do you go to find a "rightful owner"?

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 4, 2013)

GrandmasterP said:


> ......
> Property rights enshrined in statute exist in the absence of legal force.
> Where would they go?
> Enforcing such rights on the other hand.....



No. There are no property rights without force. The statutes you mention are meaningless without the force of law behind them.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 4, 2013)

Tez what do the British get out of the deal?  I know you said the islanders want to be british but if its costing you all a fortune and many lives you must be getting something out of it.  I have no dog in this fight its Your country your free to defend any other place you want Im just curious as to the motivation.  Its never a simple as were just nice people and sticking up for the little guy. Is it strategic bases and training grounds, natural resources, or something else?  Id like to kick a few islands we have free.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 4, 2013)

Dirty Dog said:


> No. There are no property rights without force. The statutes you mention are meaningless without the force of law behind them.



If that is the case, then all that is required to deprive you of your property, including your life, is a change in law.  Essentially, a government could order your death and you would have to accept this as a moral act.  See, I don't think you realize it, but when you frame the argument for property the way you do, you are actually enshrining force as the sole arbiter of everything ethical and moral about human action.  If this is what you believe, then right and wrong itself is completely dependent upon force.  Rape, murder, and theft do not exist as long as you are on the right side of the gun barrel.  Essentially, this is an outright endorsement of Ghengis Khan's ethical system.  I would highly suggest that you take a look at your life and ask yourself if this really is the ethical system that you use to go about your daily life.

That said, I do not think that force creates property rights.  I believe that force can be a reaction to property rights, but that is not the same as force creating property.  This is provable in the logical sense because things like rape, murder and theft cannot occur simultaneously.  For example, two people along in a room cannot rape each other.  If they tried, the outcome would be something other than rape.  The fact that we have this word, the fact that humans use moral language universally, supports the idea that self ownership and therefore property exists separate from force.  Our language reflects human nature which is part of nature.  I think that even if you removed words like rape, murder, and theft from our lexicon, you would still find this basic principle present in conscious beings.  Observations of animals with lower levels of consciousness confirm this.  

So, lets compare the results of these two very different ethical systems in this situation and see which one you actually agree with.  If property is created through force, then there is nothing wrong with the Argentinians simply walking in and taking the Falklands despite what the people want.  You cannot pass moral judgement upon them if they have the strength to hold it because they would have the monopoly on the force of law.  If property exists separate from force, then the Argentinians would be committing an act that is morally wrong.  They could be held responsible and there could be a chance for justice.  This same comparison could be made for any situation where moral behavior is involved.

I believe that human society exists in a pre-rational state.  Most people do not grasp the idea that fundamental principles exists and simply believe that force will determine the moral nature of all human action.  The next step in our development as a species will be the recognition that the initiation of force IS irrational.  It precludes reason by preventing men from recognizing their rational mutual self interests.  This is because the initiation of force introduces a negative into any human action for at least one party.  Win win, peaceful negotiations are impossible in situations where force is initiated and our society becomes a poorer and scarcer place overall.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 4, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> If that is the case, then all that is required to deprive you of your property, including your life, is a change in law.  Essentially, a government could order your death and you would have to accept this as a moral act.


They already do



> See, I don't think you realize it, but when you frame the argument for property they you do, you are actually enshrining force as the sole arbiter of everything ethical and moral about human action.  If this is what you believe, then right and wrong itself is completely dependent upon force.  Rape, murder, and theft do not exist as long as you are on the right side of the gun barrel.  Essentially, this is an outright endorsement of Ghengis Khan's ethical system.  I would highly suggest that you take a look at your life and ask yourself if this really is the ethical system that you use to go about your daily life.


Thats true as well already.  The right side of the gun barrel is an opinion.  We clam to have the moral right in removing the taliban yet I think they view it differently.  In this case the Brits claim to be on the side of the moral right yet the Args claim thats wrong.  Fact is were animals no matte how smart we think we are every dispute comes down to ending by force or threat of force.  Thats true no matter if your talking about a disagreement between two guys at a bar or in the court of law or two countries dipute over an island.  Theres no other way to keep whats yours if someone else wants it.  They will use force to remove it you must use force to keep it.  


> That said, I do not think that force creates property rights.  I believe that force can be a reaction to property rights, but that is not the same as force creating property.  This is provable in the logical sense because things like rape, murder and theft cannot occur simultaneously.  For example, two people along in a room cannot rape each other.   If they tried, the outcome would be something other than rape.



Sure it is Rape happens in Jail cells between two people all the time.



> The fact that we have this word, the fact that humans use moral language universally, supports the idea that self ownership and therefore property exists separate from force.  Our language reflects human nature which is part of nature.  I think that even if you removed words like rape, murder, and theft from our lexicon, you would still find this basic principle present in conscious beings.  Observations of animals with lower levels of consciousness confirm this.


Im not sure what your saying here.  You have no self ownership if someone else is willing to take it from you.  People are murdered everyday, woman are raped everyday.



> So, lets compare the results of these two very different ethical systems in this situation and see which one you actually agree with.  If property is created through force, then there is nothing wrong with the Argentinians simply walking in and taking the Falklands despite what the people want.  You cannot pass moral judgement upon them if they have the strength to hold it because they would have the monopoly on the force of law.  If property exists separate from force, then the Argentinians would be committing an act that is morally wrong.  They could be held responsible and there could be a chance for justice.  This same comparison could be made for any situation where moral behavior is involved.


Thats true to the victor goes the spoils. According to the Argentinians they are morally right to take the islands, to the Brtish they are wrong and the British are rights. Moral behavior is not universal its an opinon.


> I believe that human society exists in a pre-rational state.  Most people do not grasp the idea that fundamental principles exists and simply believe that force will determine the moral nature of all human action.  The next step in our development as a species will be the recognition that the initiation of force IS irrational.  It precludes reason by preventing men from recognizing their rational mutual self interests.  This is because the initiation of force introduces a negative into any human action for at least one party.  Win win, peaceful negotiations are impossible in situations where force is initiated and our society becomes a poorer and scarcer place overall.



Thats all fine and good until I come camp in your back yard and you want me gone.  What do you do?


----------



## granfire (Jan 4, 2013)

well, the problem is that the Falklands are not inhabited by Argentinians, but by descendants of British people. 

So there flies Argentina's claim out the window.

And the people who live there don't want to be part of Argentina.

They have been there for a few generations now, couple hundred years....


----------



## GrandmasterP (Jan 4, 2013)

Tgace said:


> How far back do you go to find a "rightful owner"?
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


.........
Tressel tells a tale in Ragged Trousered Philanthropists.....

"get off my land"
"How is this your land?"
"This estate has been in my family since Norman times"
"so how did they get it in the first place?"
"My ancestor fought for it"
"OK then. I'll fight you for it"


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 4, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> They already do



Then why do people seek to set limits on power?



ballen0351 said:


> Fact is were animals no matte how smart we think we are every dispute comes down to ending by force or threat of force.



Do you settle every dispute with violence or the threat of violence?  What would you call a person who did that?



ballen0351 said:


> Sure it is Rape happens in Jail cells between two people all the time.



Two people cannot rape each other at the same time.  If they tried, it would simply be sex.  Moral language exists that reflects the universality of self ownership.




ballen0351 said:


> You have no self ownership if someone else is willing to take it from you.  People are murdered everyday, woman are raped everyday.



The fact that someone would initiate force against you does not negate self ownership.  Neither does the fact that force would be required to defend self ownership.  Force is a reaction to ownership.  This is why the initiation of force and the response to the initiation of force fall in separate moral categories.



ballen0351 said:


> Thats true to the victor goes the spoils. According to the Argentinians they are morally right to take the islands, to the British they are wrong and the British are rights. Moral behavior is not universal its an opinion.



If moral behavior is an opinion and someone decides that it's time for you to die, why would you fight back?  Why train in martial arts at all?



ballen0351 said:


> Thats all fine and good until I come camp in your back yard and you want me gone.  What do you do?



You're a good guy.  I'd probably throw a BBQ.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 4, 2013)

granfire said:


> well, the problem is that the Falklands are not inhabited by Argentinians, but by descendants of British people.
> 
> So there flies Argentina's claim out the window.
> 
> ...



We got that part yet Im sure the Argentinians tell a different tale.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 4, 2013)

granfire said:


> well, the problem is that the Falklands are not inhabited by Argentinians, but by descendants of British people.
> 
> So there flies Argentina's claim out the window.
> 
> ...



This is why the nature of property rights is so important to this discussion.  I think the correct decision depends on the nature of property.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 4, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> Then why do people seek to set limits on power?


Because we know at somepoint maybe not tomorrow but someday the guns will turn on us.  




> Do you settle every dispute with violence or the threat of violence?  What would you call a person who did that?


well kinda  Im the violent part of Morals.  The politicians make the laws based on the peoples morals, the courts decide if the laws are ok and just and then they send us out to enforce them.  Force is even in the word



> Two people cannot rape each other at the same time.  If they tried, it would simply be sex.  Moral language exists that reflects the universality of self ownership.


Thats true but in that case your willfullly giving someone permission to "enter" your um property.  So your waiving your property rights. It can still be taken without permission is the point Im making.  Just because you tell someone no they can still do it unless you meet there force with equal or more force to stop them




> The fact that someone would initiate force against you does not negate self ownership.  Neither does the fact that force would be required to defend self ownership.  Force is a reaction to ownership.  This is why the initiation of force and the response to the initiation of force fall in separate moral categories.


But your question was can you have one without the other.  Your right to self ownership dont mean a whole lot if your dead.  Someone forfeited your self ownership with force.



> If moral behavior is an opinion and someone decides that it's time for you to die, why would you fight back?  Why train in martial arts at all?


Becuase my opinon (morals) is different then then his.  Its of my opinon that its wrong to kill me so I shall defend myself. 
Morals are an opinion something you find ok I may find immoral.  Take say Gay Marriage some say its ok others are 100% against it.  Its all in how you see the world its your opinion.  Or 9-11 the US majority thought the act of crashing planes into buildings killing 1000's was immoral yet the attackers were fighting a just and moral holy war against us.  Its all perspective.  Majority rules.  



> You're a good guy.  I'd probably throw a BBQ.


I may take you up on that my friend I love me some good BBQ


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 4, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Because we know at some point maybe not tomorrow but someday the guns will turn on us.


 
Why is this a bad thing?  Why resist at all?



ballen0351 said:


> well kinda  I'm the violent part of Morals.  The politicians make the laws based on the peoples morals, the courts decide if the laws are ok and just and then they send us out to enforce them.  Force is even in the word



Imagine that you have a dispute with your wife.  Do you settle that dispute with violence or the threat of violence?  What would you call someone who settled disputes with their spouse with violence or the threat of violence?  Why?



ballen0351 said:


> That's true but in that case your willfullly giving someone permission to "enter" your um property.  So your waiving your property rights. It can still be taken without permission is the point Im making.  Just because you tell someone no they can still do it unless you meet there force with equal or more force to stop them



My point is that something like rape cannot exist if two people rape each other at the same time.  What this indicates is that in order for rape to exist, one person must want it and another person must NOT want it.  Why would a person NOT want to be raped?  The answer is property rights.  The fact that someone can still rape does not erase someone else's property rights.  



ballen0351 said:


> But your question was can you have one without the other.  Your right to self ownership dont mean a whole lot if your dead.  Someone forfeited your self ownership with force.



I think the above quote deals with this situation as well.  Property rights are not extinguished simply become someone can initiate force against you.  If they were, there would be no such thing as justice.



ballen0351 said:


> Becuase my opinon (morals) is different then then his.  Its of my opinon that its wrong to kill me so I shall defend myself. Morals are an opinion something you find ok I may find immoral.  Take say Gay Marriage some say its ok others are 100% against it.  Its all in how you see the world its your opinion.  Or 9-11 the US majority thought the act of crashing planes into buildings killing 1000's was immoral yet the attackers were fighting a just and moral holy war against us.  Its all perspective.  Majority rules.



Why is the "opinion" that you should defend your life worth dying for?  Do you have other principles that you would stake your life upon?  Why?  Do you need to defend yourself from gay marriage?  Do you need to defend yourself against people peacefully smoking dope?  See, somethings that people call moral really are opinions.  Other things stand upon reasonable and rational principles that are not opinions.  



ballen0351 said:


> I may take you up on that my friend I love me some good BBQ



:drinkbeer


----------



## granfire (Jan 4, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> We got that part yet Im sure the Argentinians tell a different tale.



well, considering the blond, blue eyed people....there were claims in the past in regard to land for reasons of 'historical' possessions....some actually with the native people in mind......
In retrospect, the motives were not as pure....but it was easier to see in the firelight as the world was on fire....


----------



## Tgace (Jan 4, 2013)

You really have nothing but a concept of "property" keeping someone from taking the car parked in your driveway. Sniff all the unicorn farts ya want about "natural rights" if someone wants to take it you either have to stop them or have the government (law) stop them...by force or via "Justice" and punishment after the fact. Without force your "property" means nothing. 

The founding fathers said the creator endowed us with "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness"...we have to do what we can to keep them.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jan 4, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> If that is the case, then all that is required to deprive you of your property, including your life, is a change in law.



That is correct. If someone manages to pass a law that say bald headed one eyed men can be shot on sight, I'd be in trouble.



Makalakumu said:


> Essentially, a government could order your death and you would have to accept this as a moral act.



I think I see the problem. You don't understand the difference between legal and moral.

In the case of the Falkland Islands, Argentina has neither a legal or moral claim.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 4, 2013)

Tgace said:


> You really have nothing but a concept of "property" keeping someone from taking the car parked in your driveway. Sniff all the unicorn farts ya want about "natural rights" if someone wants to take it you either have to stop them or have the government (law) stop them...by force or via "Justice" and punishment after the fact. Without force your "property" means nothing.
> 
> The founding fathers said the creator endowed us with "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness"...we have to do what we can to keep them.



For most of us here, the "concept" of property is enough to deter us from simply taking it. For the few human predators that would simply take it...they may need a little "pursuasion" otherwise. That does not invalidate property rights though. Property exists independently of ability to use force. Force is a response to property.


----------



## Carol (Jan 4, 2013)

I'm in it for the BBQ


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 4, 2013)

Carol said:


> I'm in it for the BBQ



We'll hit the beach and i'll bring my boards!


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 4, 2013)

Dirty Dog said:


> That is correct. If someone manages to pass a law that say bald headed one eyed men can be shot on sight, I'd be in trouble.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think i have a pretty good grasp of the concepts of legal, moral, and ethical. That said, imagine if Argentina simply takes the Falklands and has the strength to fight off the UK claim. Is that wrong?


----------



## granfire (Jan 4, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> I think i have a pretty good grasp of the concepts of legal, moral, and ethical. That said, imagine if Argentina simply takes the Falklands and has the strength to fight off the UK claim. Is that wrong?



In this day and age?
yes

It was wrong 70 years ago as well....


----------



## Tgace (Jan 4, 2013)

Makalakumu said:


> For most of us here, the "concept" of property is enough to deter us from simply taking it. For the few human predators that would simply take it...they may need a little "pursuasion" otherwise. That does not invalidate property rights though. Property exists independently of ability to use force. Force is a response to property.



That "concept" is more easily forgotten by the masses than you would like to thing. Study riots and crowd control. While we all like to think it's our "ethics" that keep us in line, deep in our dark mind corners we all "know" that the threat of "force" legal or physical could be the result of our breaking these "concepts".


----------



## GrandmasterP (Jan 5, 2013)

Wrong maybe.
Impossible, definitely.
Those Argies couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 5, 2013)

Look at the facts, there has never been Argentinian ownership or settlers on the Falklands. The first settlers were French and British, the Spanish came along threw them all off and put theirs in. The British didn't fight for the Islands back they negociated them back, a Treaty with Spain saw the Islands beome totally British and the Spanish left. it's been British ever since. Argentina was a colony of Spain, they didn't 'own' their own country let alone the Falklands. They got their independance from Spain, they didn't get the Falklands because it belonged to Britain. The Islands are on their way to toal independance. The only time Argentinians set foot on the Islands was to invade, to kill and torture the civilians there. The Islanders asked for help as they are entitled to and the British kicked the Argentinians off. There is nothing in history or factual to show that the Islands belong to Argentina, nothing at all, they weren't native to it, *they didn't discover it, settle it or even just live there at any time.

*Britain gets little out of it I'm afraid, it's been over thrirty since someone said there's oil there and we haven't got any. Brtain because of it's colonial past and it's need for reparation for it spends a lot of money on ex colonies, India receives billions of pounds that frankly it doesn't need. We also have an immigration problem because so many ex colonials have the right to enter and live here. Anyone thinking of making snide comments about our colonial past should reflact that in many ways we have been paid back for any wrongs we did and are in fact still paying back, not just in monetary terms but in lives as well.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 5, 2013)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...the-Falklands-than-Canada-does-to-Alaska.html


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 5, 2013)

Difference between Falklands and Alaska is Alaska is a US State not a territory or colony.  I'm not saying its not your right to be there its just different


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 5, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Difference between Falklands and Alaska is Alaska is a US State not a territory or colony. I'm not saying its not your right to be there its just different



Alaska was a US territory until 1959 though wasn't it? Then it became a state. There is a very good chance that the Falklands will become an independant country after this year depending on what the Islanders vote for.


----------



## GrandmasterP (Jan 5, 2013)

One thing Falklands and Alaska have in common is that permanent residents receive a state subsidy either in cash or in kind for living there.
I reckon they deserve it too.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jan 5, 2013)

GrandmasterP said:


> One thing Falklands and Alaska have in common is that permanent residents receive a state subsidy either in cash or in kind for living there.
> I reckon they deserve it too.


We call that S.S.I in the lower 48, but I kid the Alaskans.


----------



## GrandmasterP (Jan 6, 2013)

If there is oil down there it could be in the Falkland Islanders interests to become independent.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 6, 2013)

The Falklands are self financing, the UK tax payer only pays for the defence of it which admittedly is a lot. Those in my job are included in this total.

&#8226; 1,300 Service personnel plus around 50 MOD civil servants. 
&#8226; Four Typhoon fast-jet aircraft 
&#8226; VC-10 tanker aircraft 
&#8226; Hercules C-130 aircraft 
&#8226; Rapier surface-to-air missiles 
&#8226; Frigate or Destroyer (currently Type 23 frigate HMS Montrose to be replaced by Type 
45 destroyer HMS Dauntless) 
&#8226; Royal Fleet Auxiliary Gold Rover 
&#8226; HMS Clyde permanently stationed in the region as Falklands Patrol 
&#8226; Infantry company currently from 2 Scots


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 6, 2013)

Do Americans realise that when the Argentinians gained independence they claimed the Falklands as their own and tried to put a settlement on the Islands which was destroyed by the Americans in retailiation for seizing American ships? The British have never thrown anyone off the Islands but the Americans did.


----------



## Sukerkin (Jan 6, 2013)

What a convoluted web history can weave sometimes .  Let's not talk about the Suez Canal, eh? :lol:


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 6, 2013)

Sukerkin said:


> What a convoluted web history can weave sometimes . Let's not talk about the Suez Canal, eh? :lol:



Or Grenada or the CIA in Chile.


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 6, 2013)

Tez3 said:


> Do Americans realise that when the Argentinians gained independence they claimed the Falklands as their own and tried to put a settlement on the Islands which was destroyed by the Americans in retailiation for seizing American ships? The British have never thrown anyone off the Islands but the Americans did.


Nope


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 6, 2013)

ballen0351 said:


> Nope





_The American ships Harriet, Superior and Breakwater were catured for 'illegal seal hunting._ As a reprisal, the United States consul in Buenos Aires sent Captain Silas Duncan of the USS _Lexington_ to recover the confiscated property. After finding what he considered proof that at least four American fishing ships had been captured, plundered, and even outfitted for war, Duncan took seven prisoners aboard the _Lexington_ and charged them with piracy.Also taken on board, Duncan reported, "_were the whole of the (Falklands') population consisting of about forty persons, with the exception of some 'gauchos', or cowboys who were encamped in the interior._" The group, principally German citizens from Buenos Aires, "_appeared greatly rejoiced at the opportunity thus presented of removing with their families from a desolate region where the climate is always cold and cheerless and the soil extremely unproductive_". 
Measures were taken against the settlement, the log of the _Lexington_ reports destruction of arms and a powder store, while settlers remaining later said that there was great damage to private property.[SUP][16][/SUP] Towards the end of his life, Luis Vernet authorised his sons to claim on his behalf for his losses stemming from the raid. In the case lodged against the US Government for compensation, rejected by the US Government of President Cleveland in 1885, Vernet stated that the settlement was destroyed.


Have to cut and run, am on nights will get back to this later.


----------



## Sukerkin (Mar 18, 2013)

Is there no end to the brazenness of the 'chancer' that for some baffling reason is heading Argentina into a conflict it will not be able to afford?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21835363


----------

