Conquer Club

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.

- 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.

2dimes wrote:You know I find it helps if you make analogies exaggerated. Those totally logical points are working against you here Sax.

2dimes wrote:Would a preemptive obliteration of Argentine be ok?

1970
The Falkland Islands Co. - a London-based fishing corporation - withdrew its supply ship to Montevideo, which cut-off the islanders from receiving mail service. Britain told the islanders it was not economically feasible for them to continue to receive mail.

1971
At the request of the World Postal Union, the Argentine Air Force began a weekly mail flight (at no cost) using a float plane (Malvinas had no airport at the time), to Islas Malvinas to supply the islanders with mail so they would not become the most isolated place on Earth. The RAF had previously refused a similar request from the WPU. Argentina also provides free medevac flights to Buenos Aires for ill islanders.

1973
Argentine Air Force began to take its Albatross long-range amphibians out-of-service and informed the UK it would no longer be able to take care of the islanders.The islanders petitioned London to build them an airport. UK: "that's not economically feasible." The islanders petitioned Buenos Aires to build them an airport. Argentina agreed to continue to send welfare payments to the islanders, out of goodwill, and paid for construction of a rough airstrip. Continues operating free postal and medevac flights.

1978
Argentina and the local government jointly fund construction of Port Stanley Airport. Britain is invited but doesn't bother to send any representatives to the opening ceremony of the airport. The airport, instead, is ceremonially opened by the Governor of the "Falklands" and the Vice-President of Argentina who flies in for the event.


1981
The UK passes the British Nationalities Act, which strips the "Falklanders" of British citizenship.

saxitoxin wrote:

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.

Dukasaur wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

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.

The key difference, of course, is that Kenya, India, and Ireland all had indigenous populations that were conquered to carry on the colonial enterprise.

The Falklands were completely uninhabited.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

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).

Symmetry wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

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).

They haven't asked for Independence.

Symmetry wrote:What's diplomatic about refusing to talk to the people you claim to want to govern?

saxitoxin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:What's diplomatic about refusing to talk to the people you claim to want to govern?

Argentina is absolutely willing to talk to them through their legal representative, the British Crown.

Symmetry wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:What's diplomatic about refusing to talk to the people you claim to want to govern?

Argentina is absolutely willing to talk to them through their legal representative, the British Crown.

Ridiculous, may as well ask that Canada do its business through William Hague.

Symmetry wrote:To be completely fair, I don't thinks the UK should do its business through William Hague.

saxitoxin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:To be completely fair, I don't thinks the UK should do its business through William Hague.

To be completely fair, I think the UK should do its business on William Hague.

The people of the Falkland Islands have voted overwhelmingly for the territory to stay British in an unsurprising but still historical referendum that aims to send a defiant message to Argentina and the outside world.

Despite near zero temperatures and flurries of snow and rain, the turnout was 92% from an electorate of 1,650. All but three people voted yes to the question posed on the ballots: "Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current political status as an overseas territory of the United Kingdom?"

Nobody expected anything but a landslide in a vote that the Argentinian government had dismissed as illegal. Regardless, the islanders said they were delighted at the strong show of unity at a time when the Falklands are coming under increasing pressure from Buenos Aires and its allies in South America.

"I'm very happy. Everyone has come together to express ourselves," said Kyle Biggs, who guides tourists to see penguins and battlefield sites from the 1982 war between Britain and Argentina. "I think this is massively significant. It's important to show how much we want to stay British."

After the results were announced, Biggs said, islanders celebrated late into the night despite temperatures of 3C.

In Argentina the result was dismissed with angry words by the government of President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. "We must denounce this trickery that pretends to represent the popular participation of an implanted population," said Senator Daniel Filmus, a close collaborator of the president. "This publicity stunt has no validity for international law."

Symmetry wrote:Falkland Islands referendum: overwhelming yes to staying British

The people of the Falkland Islands have voted overwhelmingly for the territory to stay British in an unsurprising but still historical referendum that aims to send a defiant message to Argentina and the outside world.

Despite near zero temperatures and flurries of snow and rain, the turnout was 92% from an electorate of 1,650. All but three people voted yes to the question posed on the ballots: "Do you wish the Falkland Islands to retain their current political status as an overseas territory of the United Kingdom?"

Nobody expected anything but a landslide in a vote that the Argentinian government had dismissed as illegal. Regardless, the islanders said they were delighted at the strong show of unity at a time when the Falklands are coming under increasing pressure from Buenos Aires and its allies in South America.

"I'm very happy. Everyone has come together to express ourselves," said Kyle Biggs, who guides tourists to see penguins and battlefield sites from the 1982 war between Britain and Argentina. "I think this is massively significant. It's important to show how much we want to stay British."

After the results were announced, Biggs said, islanders celebrated late into the night despite temperatures of 3C.

In Argentina the result was dismissed with angry words by the government of President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. "We must denounce this trickery that pretends to represent the popular participation of an implanted population," said Senator Daniel Filmus, a close collaborator of the president. "This publicity stunt has no validity for international law."

Disturbing stuff for the people who voted "never" above.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Haha, I love that move! It's like Turkey invading Cyprus, implanting a large population, and then holding a referendum.

BigBallinStalin wrote:Haha, I love that move! It's like Turkey invading Cyprus, implanting a large population, and then holding a referendum.

GreecePwns wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Haha, I love that move! It's like Turkey invading Cyprus, implanting a large population, and then holding a referendum.

Symmetry already equated the reversal of outright theft with ethnic cleansing earlier, so its no use talking about the Cyprus issue with him. Of course, he's free to explain this bizarre logic and he'll definitely get a response to it so long as he's not going to face the issue with head firmly planted in sand.

GreecePwns wrote:And Sym, yes I was trolling

GreecePwns wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Haha, I love that move! It's like Turkey invading Cyprus, implanting a large population, and then holding a referendum.

Symmetry already equated the reversal of outright theft with ethnic cleansing earlier, so its no use talking about the Cyprus issue with him. Of course, he's free to explain this bizarre logic and he'll definitely get a response to it so long as he's not going to face the issue with head firmly planted in sand.