Symmetry wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Symmetry wrote:Are you trolling now?
What's your stance on the ownership issue?
Of Cyprus or the Falklands?
The Falklands!
Moderator: Community Team
Symmetry wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Symmetry wrote:Are you trolling now?
What's your stance on the ownership issue?
Of Cyprus or the Falklands?
BigBallinStalin wrote:Symmetry wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Symmetry wrote:Are you trolling now?
What's your stance on the ownership issue?
Of Cyprus or the Falklands?
The Falklands!
BigBallinStalin wrote:I might agree with that, but holding the "should" aside, how are such matters settled in the real world of geopolitics?
And given those constraints, what would you say is the correct set of moves?
Symmetry wrote:An interesting question. I would say that it must begin with recognition of the Islands' people and their rights.
#Malvinas #Kelpers nobody denied your British nationality, just we claim that the sovereignty of the islands is from Argentina.
https://twitter.com/EmilianoKemero/stat ... 4610334720
Symmetry wrote:I'd be ok with full sovereignty, if they chose it.
saxitoxin wrote:Malvinas have a population of about 3,000. The world's smallest country has a population of 10,000
Symmetry wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:How far should that recognition of those people and their rights be extended? To answer this, let's use a simplistic IR theory to analyze the nation-states which are directly involved:
(1a) Should the UK grant the Falklands full sovereignty? (i.e. 100% recognition),
(1b) or should the UK grant them something less than full sovereignty (e.g. status quo).
(2) Depending on the answer to #1, ARG's response will vary. If the Falklands don't have full sovereignty (if 1b), then ARG must go to the group which retains ultimate discretion, i.e. the UK.
I'd be ok with full sovereignty, if they chose it.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Symmetry wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:How far should that recognition of those people and their rights be extended? To answer this, let's use a simplistic IR theory to analyze the nation-states which are directly involved:
(1a) Should the UK grant the Falklands full sovereignty? (i.e. 100% recognition),
(1b) or should the UK grant them something less than full sovereignty (e.g. status quo).
(2) Depending on the answer to #1, ARG's response will vary. If the Falklands don't have full sovereignty (if 1b), then ARG must go to the group which retains ultimate discretion, i.e. the UK.
I'd be ok with full sovereignty, if they chose it.
Same here, but since that is not the case--and since the UK does not seem intent on letting that happen, what do?
BigBallinStalin wrote:A respectable ideal, but (1) ARG can only engage in legitimate diplomacy through the UK, and (2) the UK seems adverse to the risk of enabling fuller sovereignty to the Falklands--since the UK favors its economic and militaristic goals more than enabling the self-determination of the Falklands to bloom.
So, now what?
Symmetry wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:A respectable ideal, but (1) ARG can only engage in legitimate diplomacy through the UK, and (2) the UK seems adverse to the risk of enabling fuller sovereignty to the Falklands--since the UK favors its economic and militaristic goals more than enabling the self-determination of the Falklands to bloom.
So, now what?
Talk to the people you wish to govern.
Symmetry wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:A respectable ideal, but (1) ARG can only engage in legitimate diplomacy through the UK, and (2) the UK seems adverse to the risk of enabling fuller sovereignty to the Falklands--since the UK favors its economic and militaristic goals more than enabling the self-determination of the Falklands to bloom.
So, now what?
Talk to the people you wish to govern.
saxitoxin wrote:Symmetry wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:A respectable ideal, but (1) ARG can only engage in legitimate diplomacy through the UK, and (2) the UK seems adverse to the risk of enabling fuller sovereignty to the Falklands--since the UK favors its economic and militaristic goals more than enabling the self-determination of the Falklands to bloom.
So, now what?
Talk to the people you wish to govern.
You keep saying that.
Symmetry wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Symmetry wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:A respectable ideal, but (1) ARG can only engage in legitimate diplomacy through the UK, and (2) the UK seems adverse to the risk of enabling fuller sovereignty to the Falklands--since the UK favors its economic and militaristic goals more than enabling the self-determination of the Falklands to bloom.
So, now what?
Talk to the people you wish to govern.
You keep saying that.
Yes- the situation needs to be discussed with the Falkland Islanders by both sides.
saxitoxin wrote:Symmetry wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Symmetry wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:A respectable ideal, but (1) ARG can only engage in legitimate diplomacy through the UK, and (2) the UK seems adverse to the risk of enabling fuller sovereignty to the Falklands--since the UK favors its economic and militaristic goals more than enabling the self-determination of the Falklands to bloom.
So, now what?
Talk to the people you wish to govern.
You keep saying that.
Yes- the situation needs to be discussed with the Falkland Islanders by both sides.
There are not three sides, there are two sides: the British side and the Argentine side. The "Falklanders" confirmed this fact by their vote when they declared themselves part of the UK. Argentina has issued no demands that the provincial government of Tierra del Fuego be involved, even though Malvinas is legally part of that province.
Symmetry wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Symmetry wrote:saxitoxin wrote:Symmetry wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:A respectable ideal, but (1) ARG can only engage in legitimate diplomacy through the UK, and (2) the UK seems adverse to the risk of enabling fuller sovereignty to the Falklands--since the UK favors its economic and militaristic goals more than enabling the self-determination of the Falklands to bloom.
So, now what?
Talk to the people you wish to govern.
You keep saying that.
Yes- the situation needs to be discussed with the Falkland Islanders by both sides.
There are not three sides, there are two sides: the British side and the Argentine side. The "Falklanders" confirmed this fact by their vote when they declared themselves part of the UK. Argentina has issued no demands that the provincial government of Tierra del Fuego be involved, even though Malvinas is legally part of that province.
If Argentina wishes to govern the islands, they have to do so via dictatorship (never acknowledge them) or ethnic cleansing of anyone who wants to remain free.
MrPanzerGeneral wrote:Brits are in a position of power.....The RN & the RAF could wipe the present day Argentinian Air Force & Navy offa the map, anytime, if they ever wanted to, offensively OR defensively ( with one hand tied behind their backs even.... I hazard....)... and the B.A is then always on the ground Argentina can't protect, nor project, it's own landward boundaries at present, let alone do it across some water.... all bluff... but come what may...we'll be willing to teach them a lesson again
Brazil likewise...
MrPanzerGeneral wrote:The U.K "retaking" the Falklands is a moot point. Argentina is in no position to launch a force to "Take" them.
The FAA no longer possess any operable air superiority fighter, and currently have no strike capability, apart from 20 odd A-4's - which 4 RAF Euro-Typhoons are easily more than a match for. Their navy too is in as much disrepair as their airforce, and is really only just managing (barely) to stay afloat. 1 R.N Sub & 1 RN Destroyer sufficient to deal with whatever the ARA could send.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: mookiemcgee