Page 2 of 6

PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 9:41 am
by Symmetry
BigBallinStalin wrote:If the UK actually wanted the Falkanders to become part of the negotiation, then why not grant that political entity its own Full sovereignty?
If national security (e.g. ARG invasion) is an issue, then the two sovereign nations of UK and Kelper Kingdom can sign a military alliance, thus giving UK casus belli if ARG invades.

Then, the Falklanders would have the discretion to resolve this issue. But that doesn't happen. Why? Because the UK ultimately does not wish to relinquish its full control over that island?

It seems that the UK is not at all interested in negotiating with anybody (neither ARG nor Kelper Kingdom). If anyone believes otherwise, then how would they explain all the above problems in this post and my previous one?


That's a decision for the people who live there to make.

Re: Should Argentina talk to the Falkland Islanders?

PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 10:29 am
by Dukasaur
The Argentinian claim to the Falklands is entirely based on the Spanish claim to the Falklands, and the Spanish claim to the Falklands is purely bogus. The Spanish established a colony. Pathetically mismanaged, it soon fell apart. The English came and started a colony. Intelligently managed, it has thrived for hundreds of years.

To have some inkling of the absolutely colossal incompetence of the Spanish colonial administration, consider this: After stealing the Aztec and Inca gold hoards, Spain had 60% of the world's known gold reserve. This was at a time when the gold standard was still nearly universal, so in effect they had 60% of the world's money. More money than all the other countries on the planet combined! Yet, in less than a century they were bankrupt and begging for money. Less than a century to squander more than half of the money on the entire fucking planet!

I hope Philips III and IV have a very special place in Hell, condemned to an eternity of being kicked in the balls by Samuel Bronfman, who could teach them a thing or two about spending money wisely.

If Macaulay's essays were mandatory reading in school instead of fluff like the Catcher in the Rye, this would all be commone knowledge.

Of course, we now have the hilarious spectacle of organisations like the European Parliament "recognising" the Argentine (Spanish colonial) claim. Keep in mind that this is a Parliament composed mainly of welfare statists, who love rewarding failure. Of course colonial Spain, poster child for catastrophic incompetence, would be a beloved darling to them. These are the same people who love bailing out failed banks instead of letting them fall into the sewer where they belong.

Aside from the failed Spanish colony and the laughable legal technicalities arising from it, the Argentines have nothing. Neither geologically, nor ethnically, nor economically, have the Falklands ever been attached to Argentina. It's a bogus claim, only kept alive by the the sinister forces underlying the modern state -- a desire to punish success and reward failure.

Re:

PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 10:39 am
by BigBallinStalin
Symmetry wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:If the UK actually wanted the Falkanders to become part of the negotiation, then why not grant that political entity its own Full sovereignty?
If national security (e.g. ARG invasion) is an issue, then the two sovereign nations of UK and Kelper Kingdom can sign a military alliance, thus giving UK casus belli if ARG invades.

Then, the Falklanders would have the discretion to resolve this issue. But that doesn't happen. Why? Because the UK ultimately does not wish to relinquish its full control over that island?

It seems that the UK is not at all interested in negotiating with anybody (neither ARG nor Kelper Kingdom). If anyone believes otherwise, then how would they explain all the above problems in this post and my previous one?


That's a decision for the people who live there to make.


That's nice, but they have no jurisdiction since the UK denies them sovereignty. So now what? Are you going to be a good citizen and protest against the UK's status quo in refusing to grant them their sovereignty?

Re: Should Argentina talk to the Falkland Islanders?

PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 10:41 am
by BigBallinStalin
Dukasaur wrote:The Argentinian claim to the Falklands is entirely based on the Spanish claim to the Falklands, and the Spanish claim to the Falklands is purely bogus. The Spanish established a colony. Pathetically mismanaged, it soon fell apart. The English came and started a colony. Intelligently managed, it has thrived for hundreds of years.

To have some inkling of the absolutely colossal incompetence of the Spanish colonial administration, consider this: After stealing the Aztec and Inca gold hoards, Spain had 60% of the world's known gold reserve. This was at a time when the gold standard was still nearly universal, so in effect they had 60% of the world's money. More money than all the other countries on the planet combined! Yet, in less than a century they were bankrupt and begging for money. Less than a century to squander more than half of the money on the entire fucking planet!

I hope Philips III and IV have a very special place in Hell, condemned to an eternity of being kicked in the balls by Samuel Bronfman, who could teach them a thing or two about spending money wisely.

If Macaulay's essays were mandatory reading in school instead of fluff like the Catcher in the Rye, this would all be commone knowledge.

Of course, we now have the hilarious spectacle of organisations like the European Parliament "recognising" the Argentine (Spanish colonial) claim. Keep in mind that this is a Parliament composed mainly of welfare statists, who love rewarding failure. Of course colonial Spain, poster child for catastrophic incompetence, would be a beloved darling to them. These are the same people who love bailing out failed banks instead of letting them fall into the sewer where they belong.

Aside from the failed Spanish colony and the laughable legal technicalities arising from it, the Argentines have nothing. Neither geologically, nor ethnically, nor economically, have the Falklands ever been attached to Argentina. It's a bogus claim, only kept alive by the the sinister forces underlying the modern state -- a desire to punish success and reward failure.


History shmistory! With nationalist sentiments on the line, the rabid nationalists like Sym and CoH do not give a shit. If history supported their case, they would support the history. If it didn't, then they'd find something else to latch their emotions onto.

Re: Should Argentina talk to the Falkland Islanders?

PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 10:55 am
by Symmetry
Rabid nationalism is kinda harsh for a suggestion that Argentina talk to the people.

Re: Should Argentina talk to the Falkland Islanders?

PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 11:00 am
by BigBallinStalin
Symmetry wrote:Rabid nationalism is kinda harsh for a suggestion that Argentina talk to the people.


Your willful ignorance of other relevant factors in this event prevent you from being taken seriously ITT.

Re: Should Argentina talk to the Falkland Islanders?

PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 11:03 am
by 2dimes
BigBallinStalin wrote:ITT.

Just in this one?

Re: Should Argentina talk to the Falkland Islanders?

PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 11:03 am
by Symmetry
BigBallinStalin wrote:
Symmetry wrote:Rabid nationalism is kinda harsh for a suggestion that Argentina talk to the people.


Your willful ignorance of other relevant factors in this event prevent you from being taken seriously ITT.


Oh dear, dolly is out of the pram.

Re: Should Argentina talk to the Falkland Islanders?

PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 11:11 am
by Symmetry
2dimes wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:ITT.

Just in this one?


Well, there is the one where he called for my death.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 11:12 am
by 2dimes
What, you don't like cake?

Re:

PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 11:14 am
by Symmetry
2dimes wrote:What, you don't like cake?


No- pies are far better.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 11:16 am
by 2dimes
Symmetry wrote:
2dimes wrote:What, you don't like cake?


No- pies are far better.

FACT!

PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 11:19 am
by 2dimes
Australia is a much better commonwealth in that there were meat pies available in the airports a and at fast food kiosks. It was pretty awesome.

Do they have pie stands like that in the Falklands?

Re:

PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 11:37 am
by Symmetry
2dimes wrote:Australia is a much better commonwealth in that there were meat pies available in the airports a and at fast food kiosks. It was pretty awesome.

Do they have pie stands like that in the Falklands?


No idea, but a Falklander made the best lamb pie I ever tasted.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 11:50 am
by 2dimes
Colour me green. For sure pie is in the top ten things I Put in my mouth on your island.

Re: Should Argentina talk to the Falkland Islanders?

PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 12:21 pm
by BigBallinStalin
2dimes wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:ITT.

Just in this one?


Yeah, I was being generous. Sym is a minefield of emotional diatribe.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 12:26 pm
by 2dimes
BigBallinStalin wrote:
2dimes wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:ITT.

Just in this one?


Yeah, I was being generous. Sym is a minefield of emotional diatribe.

Well,
Holly Knight and Mike Chapman wrote:Love is a battlefield.

Re:

PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 12:33 pm
by BigBallinStalin
2dimes wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
2dimes wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:ITT.

Just in this one?


Yeah, I was being generous. Sym is a minefield of emotional diatribe.

Well,
Holly Knight and Mike Chapman wrote:Love is a battlefield.


lol, sometimes.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 12:57 pm
by 2dimes
Do do da doot, da do do da do do. ~snaps fingers~

Re: Should Argentina talk to the Falkland Islanders?

PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 1:13 pm
by notyou2
The Argentinians never called back after the last time they slept together. If I was the Falklands, and Argentina called, I wouldn't answer.

Re: Should Argentina talk to the Falkland Islanders?

PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 3:06 pm
by saxitoxin
Dukasaur wrote:The Spanish established a colony. Pathetically mismanaged, it soon fell apart. The English came and started a colony. Intelligently managed, it has thrived for hundreds of years.


Yes, that is the colonialist viewpoint.

    - Kenya wasn't smart enough to invent the automobile. The British came along and then Kenya had lots of automobiles. Britain has a legal right to Kenya.
    - Indians were too dumb to export tea. The British came along and then India exported lots of tea. Britain has a legal right to India.
    - Irish were too drunk to do whatever it is Irish do. The British came along and then Ireland started doing all sorts of the stuff they do. Britain has a legal right to Ireland.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 3:11 pm
by 2dimes
You know I find it helps if you make analogies exaggerated. Those totally logical points are working against you here Sax.

Re:

PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 3:24 pm
by BigBallinStalin
2dimes wrote:You know I find it helps if you make analogies exaggerated. Those totally logical points are working against you here Sax.


I disagree if we consider the following: the sax-analogies help to outline the implicit reasoning of "White Man's Burden," which has become a foundation from which intervention into other countries in various forms is justified. For example, one could make the case that the Falklanders should not receive sovereignty because they would be unable to save themselves from the bloody talons of Argentina.

This sounds reasonable until we recall the implications of a mutual defense pact between the UK and the Falklanders, which would obliterate the standing of that White Man's Burden argument. The US has such an (in)formal agreement with the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, and others. One substitute/complementary service for a mutual defense pact would be basing military troops there (e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, NATO in Turkey, etc.). These measures serve as a threat deterrent to other interventionist countries, and for decades have worked exceedingly well.

But why doesn't the UK follow such a plan?
(Because it does not wish to grant the Falklands their sovereignty. Instead, the UK and its economic interests seek to profit from the opportunities of maintaining significant control over that region's resources. In short, the UK desires to maintain its colonizing power over the Falklands).

PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 3:28 pm
by 2dimes
Would a preemptive obliteration of Argentine be ok?

Re:

PostPosted: Sat Mar 09, 2013 3:56 pm
by BigBallinStalin
2dimes wrote:Would a preemptive obliteration of Argentine be ok?


If you're a warmongering neocon, then sure!

Step right up Dubya 2dimes Obama!