Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

The British Experiment

innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 9:11:57 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
That's what i read over the weekend in the newspaper (an actual paper news paper). The proposed cuts in Britain are massive, and will impact their military pretty hard. What i read was 'most economists do not think that this is the best way to solve the debt problems, but will only make matters worse'. Whereas the US has embarked on the strategy of more incentives which many agree has contributed to a continuous weakening dollar.

In what i read, it was explained that the British military will still be able to contribute to the war in Afghanistan, but that's about it. If there was a need for another engagement elsewhere, for example another Falkland Island dispute, England would not be able to react. The only aircraft carrier that the UK has will be decommissioned, and jet fighters will remain idle. I am wondering if this creates a vacuum or an opportunity for other nations. I am wondering if British allies will need to pick up the slack.

In my opinion, i think in general terms the British approach is the most prudent and logical solution. I wonder if the military cuts will have greater ramifications than anticipated.

http://articles.latimes.com...
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 9:41:51 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
It's going to be awfully embarrasing when we loose a war with Argentina.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 9:44:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/25/2010 9:41:51 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
It's going to be awfully embarrasing when we loose a war with Argentina.

It is truly amazing to see what has come of the once mighty British Empire. No disrespect intended.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2010 9:55:36 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/25/2010 9:44:20 AM, innomen wrote:
At 10/25/2010 9:41:51 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
It's going to be awfully embarrasing when we loose a war with Argentina.

It is truly amazing to see what has come of the once mighty British Empire. No disrespect intended.

The funny thing this is what we do. We habitually abolish our navy, even in the middle of war time yet still win more often than not, it is our tradition to underfund an already tiny army... yet it still gets the job done. We went to war with Hitler with planes made of canvas and balsa wood.

However, that was back in the days when we had some sort of spine, industry and money. We have nothing now, yet we still strut about like a Great Power.

The other funny thing is that we actually have a moral* justification to defend the falklands from Argentina, yet absolutely none for Iraq and Afghanistan.

*Oh I don't believe in morality, sorry I forget.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2010 12:14:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/25/2010 9:55:36 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/25/2010 9:44:20 AM, innomen wrote:
At 10/25/2010 9:41:51 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
It's going to be awfully embarrasing when we loose a war with Argentina.

It is truly amazing to see what has come of the once mighty British Empire. No disrespect intended.

The funny thing this is what we do. We habitually abolish our navy, even in the middle of war time yet still win more often than not, it is our tradition to underfund an already tiny army... yet it still gets the job done. We went to war with Hitler with planes made of canvas and balsa wood.

However, that was back in the days when we had some sort of spine, industry and money. We have nothing now, yet we still strut about like a Great Power.

The other funny thing is that we actually have a moral* justification to defend the falklands from Argentina, yet absolutely none for Iraq and Afghanistan.

*Oh I don't believe in morality, sorry I forget.

I'm listening. I thought the Falklands war was just conservative Neocolonialism but prove me wrong.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2010 12:18:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Military is one area where I am happy for cuts to be made. I for one am glad that we're no longer the biggest bully in the global playground, you guys are welcome to that role.

It's the cuts to public services, social housing and services to young people that are the false economy here. The Tories will just have to deal with a whole new wave of deprived and delinquent youth and will need to spend more to deal with the problems this creates. Probably they will just build more prisons.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2010 3:28:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/26/2010 12:14:12 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 10/25/2010 9:55:36 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/25/2010 9:44:20 AM, innomen wrote:
At 10/25/2010 9:41:51 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
It's going to be awfully embarrasing when we loose a war with Argentina.

It is truly amazing to see what has come of the once mighty British Empire. No disrespect intended.

The funny thing this is what we do. We habitually abolish our navy, even in the middle of war time yet still win more often than not, it is our tradition to underfund an already tiny army... yet it still gets the job done. We went to war with Hitler with planes made of canvas and balsa wood.

However, that was back in the days when we had some sort of spine, industry and money. We have nothing now, yet we still strut about like a Great Power.

The other funny thing is that we actually have a moral* justification to defend the falklands from Argentina, yet absolutely none for Iraq and Afghanistan.

*Oh I don't believe in morality, sorry I forget.

I'm listening. I thought the Falklands war was just conservative Neocolonialism but prove me wrong.

Seriously?

Okay a few facts,

Argentina has no claim on the Falklands. The precursor nation may have once claimed it, but that did not last for more than a few months. If the Argentinian claim was recognised then it would have to be divided up amongst several countries, the whole thing would be absurd.

It has been held in British hands for about 170 years.

These are both weak points in relation to the fact that the Falkland Islanders are white, British, English speaking and desire to remain British.

Heck... we have a better claim on the Falklands than the US has on... well the USA to be fair.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2010 1:02:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/26/2010 3:28:04 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/26/2010 12:14:12 PM, Zetsubou wrote:

I'm listening. I thought the Falklands war was just conservative Neocolonialism but prove me wrong.

Seriously?

Okay a few facts,
This isn't a fact "Argentina has no claim on the Falklands". I thought Argentine claims to Islands off it's coasts were written into there constitution.

Argentina has no claim on the Falklands. The precursor nation may have once claimed it, but that did not last for more than a few months.
Well, not really, between 1764 and 1819 the French, Spanish and Brits have been fighting over the islands. In 1820 the islands fell under Argentine rule and stayed that way until 1832 when the British returned. It's been under British rule since.
If the Argentinian claim was recognised then it would have to be divided up amongst several countries, the whole thing would be absurd.
Sorry, why?

It has been held in British hands for about 170 years.
Bengal India - 1757-1947 - 190 years
First British colonies in North America - 1750-1962 - 212 years.
Tasmania - 1803/1825-1901 - 98 years

Do we have claims to the above?

These are both weak points in relation to the fact that the Falkland Islanders are white, British, English speaking and desire to remain British.

Implying Argentines aren't white. The Falklanders are only 70% British and almost entirely white. 86% of Argentina's citizens are of European descent.
Heck... we have a better claim on the Falklands than the US has on... well the USA to be fair.
Really, the US has less claims on ITSELF than the claims of a state to some islands less than 500km for it's coast? Wow.

===

Anyway, you can keep it. No skin of my nose.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2010 11:54:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/27/2010 1:02:33 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 10/26/2010 3:28:04 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/26/2010 12:14:12 PM, Zetsubou wrote:

I'm listening. I thought the Falklands war was just conservative Neocolonialism but prove me wrong.

Seriously?

Okay a few facts,
This isn't a fact "Argentina has no claim on the Falklands". I thought Argentine claims to Islands off it's coasts were written into there constitution.

I can sign a contract with myself declaring me sole Emperor of your left testicle. I don't think anyone would respect my Imperial Sovereignty over your little man grape.


Argentina has no claim on the Falklands. The precursor nation may have once claimed it, but that did not last for more than a few months.
Well, not really, between 1764 and 1819 the French, Spanish and Brits have been fighting over the islands. In 1820 the islands fell under Argentine rule and stayed that way until 1832 when the British returned. It's been under British rule since.

In 1820 there was no such thing as Argentina, sure I was wrong about the months but hey.

If the Argentinian claim was recognised then it would have to be divided up amongst several countries, the whole thing would be absurd.
Sorry, why?

See above.


It has been held in British hands for about 170 years.
Bengal India - 1757-1947 - 190 years
First British colonies in North America - 1750-1962 - 212 years.
Tasmania - 1803/1825-1901 - 98 years

Do we have claims to the above?

Do we have a continuous chain of people who are British and and identify as British up to the present day... no. The Falkand isles have been held by British people who call themselves British for generations.


These are both weak points in relation to the fact that the Falkland Islanders are white, British, English speaking and desire to remain British.

Implying Argentines aren't white. The Falklanders are only 70% British and almost entirely white. 86% of Argentina's citizens are of European descent.

Replace with anglo-saxon if you will.

Heck... we have a better claim on the Falklands than the US has on... well the USA to be fair.
Really, the US has less claims on ITSELF than the claims of a state to some islands less than 500km for it's coast? Wow.


Following the principle of homogeny and national determination, yes.

===

Anyway, you can keep it. No skin of my nose.

No we can't, we suck. A third world sh!thole is probably going to take it whilst our olympic stadia are collapsing on live TV.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 3:16:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/27/2010 11:54:27 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/27/2010 1:02:33 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 10/26/2010 3:28:04 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/26/2010 12:14:12 PM, Zetsubou wrote:

I'm listening. I thought the Falklands war was just conservative Neocolonialism but prove me wrong.

Seriously?

Okay a few facts,
This isn't a fact "Argentina has no claim on the Falklands". I thought Argentine claims to Islands off it's coasts were written into there constitution.

I can sign a contract with myself declaring me sole Emperor of your left testicle. I don't think anyone would respect my Imperial Sovereignty over your little man grape.
But you do have a claim to my left testicle.



Argentina has no claim on the Falklands. The precursor nation may have once claimed it, but that did not last for more than a few months.
Well, not really, between 1764 and 1819 the French, Spanish and Brits have been fighting over the islands. In 1820 the islands fell under Argentine rule and stayed that way until 1832 when the British returned. It's been under British rule since.

In 1820 there was no such thing as Argentina, sure I was wrong about the months but hey.
Yes, there was... I think they got their independence as early as 1810

If the Argentinian claim was recognised then it would have to be divided up amongst several countries, the whole thing would be absurd.
Sorry, why?

See above.
You were wrong.


It has been held in British hands for about 170 years.
Bengal India - 1757-1947 - 190 years
First British colonies in North America - 1750-1962 - 212 years.
Tasmania - 1803/1825-1901 - 98 years

Do we have claims to the above?

Do we have a continuous chain of people who are British and and identify as British up to the present day... no. The Falkand isles have been held by British people who call themselves British for generations.
Boers. (inb4 Boers were dutch - Southern Boers were Brit/welsh)


These are both weak points in relation to the fact that the Falkland Islanders are white, British, English speaking and desire to remain British.

Implying Argentines aren't white. The Falklanders are only 70% British and almost entirely white. 86% of Argentina's citizens are of European descent.

Replace with anglo-saxon if you will.
Franks aren't all anglo-saxon. Anglo-saxon has been used to describe most Nordic/Teutonic peoples by both Americians and Brits.

Heck... we have a better claim on the Falklands than the US has on... well the USA to be fair.
Really, the US has less claims on ITSELF than the claims of a state to some islands less than 500km for it's coast? Wow.


Following the principle of homogeny and national determination, yes.
So the people of the US don't want to(/have never wanted to) be independent of Britain?

===

Anyway, you can keep it. No skin of my nose.

No we can't, we suck. A third world sh!thole is probably going to take it whilst our olympic stadia are collapsing on live TV.

Argentina is NOT 3rd world country, if they got advocacy and arms support from Chile and Brazil Argentina may very well take the Falklands; unless we invade mainland Argintina(lol), you are very correct.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 3:44:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The Argentines had no interest in the Falklands until the possibility of oil being discovered in the surrounding waters was first muted.

There's nothing else of value there, and has already been noted, there was never any indigenous population there.

At the end of the day, the British have always speculated to accumulate - we've lost mostly, as in the case of North America, most of Africa, India, Australia, New Zealand and parts of East Asia - so nobody should begrudge us our few remaining colonial outposts such as the Falklands, Gibraltar, and our Caribbean, Indian Ocean and South Pacific territories.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 3:48:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Oh, and the Channel Islands off the coast of Northern France - the French really resent that - it's like Key West belonging to the Russians!
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 3:57:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 3:44:50 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:
The Argentines had no interest in the Falklands until the possibility of oil being discovered in the surrounding waters was first muted.
Oil was found after the Falklands war. Not to mention that they've wanted it since 1833 when they lost it to the UK.

There's nothing else of value there, and has already been noted, there was never any indigenous population there.
The first settlement was French and the first lander was Spanish.

At the end of the day, the British have always speculated to accumulate - we've lost mostly, as in the case of North America, most of Africa, India, Australia, New Zealand and parts of East Asia - so nobody should begrudge us our few remaining colonial outposts such as the Falklands, Gibraltar, and our Caribbean, Indian Ocean and South Pacific territories.
We let them go or allowed them the choice to walk away, you only hold islands because islands, especially archipelagos, can't usually claim autonomy.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2010 5:14:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I don't see why a huge military is necessary anymore. Who's going to wage war with England? Besides, we have drones, WMDs and other technology that's starting to make man power obsolete. Occupation is really what standing armies are useful for, and like feverish I'm glad to see a cut being made in this area rather than other more useful programs (like ya know, feeding innocent hungry kids).
President of DDO
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2010 12:04:21 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 3:16:39 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 10/27/2010 11:54:27 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/27/2010 1:02:33 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 10/26/2010 3:28:04 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/26/2010 12:14:12 PM, Zetsubou wrote:

I'm listening. I thought the Falklands war was just conservative Neocolonialism but prove me wrong.

Seriously?

Okay a few facts,
This isn't a fact "Argentina has no claim on the Falklands". I thought Argentine claims to Islands off it's coasts were written into there constitution.

I can sign a contract with myself declaring me sole Emperor of your left testicle. I don't think anyone would respect my Imperial Sovereignty over your little man grape.
But you do have a claim to my left testicle.

I should possibly sig that.




Argentina has no claim on the Falklands. The precursor nation may have once claimed it, but that did not last for more than a few months.
Well, not really, between 1764 and 1819 the French, Spanish and Brits have been fighting over the islands. In 1820 the islands fell under Argentine rule and stayed that way until 1832 when the British returned. It's been under British rule since.

In 1820 there was no such thing as Argentina, sure I was wrong about the months but hey.
Yes, there was... I think they got their independence as early as 1810

Yea but the name Argentina did not come until later, pedantic I know.


If the Argentinian claim was recognised then it would have to be divided up amongst several countries, the whole thing would be absurd.
Sorry, why?

See above.
You were wrong.

It would have to be divided up amongst all the other countries that also briefly held it.



It has been held in British hands for about 170 years.
Bengal India - 1757-1947 - 190 years
First British colonies in North America - 1750-1962 - 212 years.
Tasmania - 1803/1825-1901 - 98 years

Do we have claims to the above?

Do we have a continuous chain of people who are British and and identify as British up to the present day... no. The Falkand isles have been held by British people who call themselves British for generations.
Boers. (inb4 Boers were dutch - Southern Boers were Brit/welsh)

I thought they were all Dutch, but anyway, I am not saying we have a claim on Boer lands.



These are both weak points in relation to the fact that the Falkland Islanders are white, British, English speaking and desire to remain British.

Implying Argentines aren't white. The Falklanders are only 70% British and almost entirely white. 86% of Argentina's citizens are of European descent.

Replace with anglo-saxon if you will.
Franks aren't all anglo-saxon. Anglo-saxon has been used to describe most Nordic/Teutonic peoples by both Americians and Brits.

Again you have lost me.


Heck... we have a better claim on the Falklands than the US has on... well the USA to be fair.
Really, the US has less claims on ITSELF than the claims of a state to some islands less than 500km for it's coast? Wow.


Following the principle of homogeny and national determination, yes.
So the people of the US don't want to(/have never wanted to) be independent of Britain?

I never said that... this is all getting very messy...

It all comes down to this, the people of the falklands are an ethnically and culturally homogenous population who call themselves British and have done for 170 odd years (or at least for generations).

This would create for me a very good 'moral' argument that the islands are British. Legally speaking the League of Nations and the United Nations were both founded on the principle of national self-determination. Democratically speaking as they overwhelmingly want to be British, they should remain British.

The act of acquiring the Islands may have been shoddy, but to take that argument to its 'logical' conclusion would be obscene. With the exception of a few micro-nations I suspect that no country on earth has not been founded on some sort of atrocity or crime.

If a plebiscite was held and the Falkalanders wanted to be Argentinean I'd be happy with that, Independent, Chinese, Babylonian... its all good. But they are British, they call themselves British and they want to be British.


===

Anyway, you can keep it. No skin of my nose.

No we can't, we suck. A third world sh!thole is probably going to take it whilst our olympic stadia are collapsing on live TV.

Argentina is NOT 3rd world country, if they got advocacy and arms support from Chile and Brazil Argentina may very well take the Falklands; unless we invade mainland Argintina(lol), you are very correct.

They are too far south to be anything other than 3rd world. They can call themselves 2nd world when they stop rebelling and re-enter the Spanish Empire.

But anyways... I expect they would get any amount of assistance from such countries and the 'League of Non-aligned nations' (you don't much about them but there the sort of countries that would love to jump on a fake anti-colonial bandwagon).

It is incredibly unlikely that America will care, I mean there is oil and Obama might consider it an advantage to keep one country in Europe that still likes them... but it's a bit far fetched.

Of course what our traitor-quisling politicans could have done is forge secret aggreements with Europe, a joint EU force would utterly re-write the political landscape and Britains relations with the EU. Paving the way for the eventual superstate. But that is so utterly far fetched.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2010 7:13:56 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 5:14:47 PM, theLwerd wrote:
I don't see why a huge military is necessary anymore. Who's going to wage war with England? Besides, we have drones, WMDs and other technology that's starting to make man power obsolete. Occupation is really what standing armies are useful for, and like feverish I'm glad to see a cut being made in this area rather than other more useful programs (like ya know, feeding innocent hungry kids).

Most forms of technological warfare are illegal, and "WMD"s are only used in wars of annihilation, most wars, especially now in the 21st century, are never about annihilation. The only wars that were or were fought like mass annihilation wars in the 20th Century were Serbia, Naxalites, Iran-Iraq, WWI, WWII. Most wars are guerrilla combats or have ante bellum objectives much like the Iraq or Afghanistan wars now, we need armies for the same reason we don't bomb their asses to mars now.

War with the English, it's more about the English, through NATO, waging war on little states and the fact that the UK can't afford it. It's an established fact that war is inevitable, the longer the peace the worse the war.

And If you think wars are a thing of the past I think be surprised to find that most current wars have more annual deaths than the Iraq war, people still hate people.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2010 7:32:15 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/29/2010 12:04:21 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/28/2010 3:16:39 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 10/27/2010 11:54:27 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/27/2010 1:02:33 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 10/26/2010 3:28:04 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/26/2010 12:14:12 PM, Zetsubou wrote:

I'm listening. I thought the Falklands war was just conservative Neocolonialism but prove me wrong.

Seriously?

Okay a few facts,
This isn't a fact "Argentina has no claim on the Falklands". I thought Argentine claims to Islands off it's coasts were written into there constitution.

I can sign a contract with myself declaring me sole Emperor of your left testicle. I don't think anyone would respect my Imperial Sovereignty over your little man grape.
But you do have a claim to my left testicle.

I should possibly sig that.




Argentina has no claim on the Falklands. The precursor nation may have once claimed it, but that did not last for more than a few months.
Well, not really, between 1764 and 1819 the French, Spanish and Brits have been fighting over the islands. In 1820 the islands fell under Argentine rule and stayed that way until 1832 when the British returned. It's been under British rule since.

In 1820 there was no such thing as Argentina, sure I was wrong about the months but hey.
Yes, there was... I think they got their independence as early as 1810

Yea but the name Argentina did not come until later, pedantic I know.
><
Well in 1910 we were the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland not the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, pedantic I know.

Why aren't the Falklands Irish?


If the Argentinian claim was recognised then it would have to be divided up amongst several countries, the whole thing would be absurd.
Sorry, why?

See above.
You were wrong.

It would have to be divided up amongst all the other countries that also briefly held it.
Why?
If the Argentinian claim was recognised then it would have to be divided up amongst several countries, the whole thing would be absurd. <because> It would have to be divided up amongst all the other countries that also briefly held it.



It has been held in British hands for about 170 years.
Bengal India - 1757-1947 - 190 years
First British colonies in North America - 1750-1962 - 212 years.
Tasmania - 1803/1825-1901 - 98 years

Do we have claims to the above?

Do we have a continuous chain of people who are British and and identify as British up to the present day... no. The Falkand isles have been held by British people who call themselves British for generations.
Boers. (inb4 Boers were dutch - Southern Boers were Brit/welsh)

I thought they were all Dutch, but anyway, I am not saying we have a claim on Boer lands.
Some Brits settled since we owned the area.



These are both weak points in relation to the fact that the Falkland Islanders are white, British, English speaking and desire to remain British.

Implying Argentines aren't white. The Falklanders are only 70% British and almost entirely white. 86% of Argentina's citizens are of European descent.

Replace with anglo-saxon if you will.
Franks aren't all anglo-saxon. Anglo-saxon has been used to describe most Nordic/Teutonic peoples by both Americians and Brits.

Again you have lost me.
"Anglo-Saxons" are not from Anglo-Saxon origin. White is much more accurate Mr klansman.


Heck... we have a better claim on the Falklands than the US has on... well the USA to be fair.
Really, the US has less claims on ITSELF than the claims of a state to some islands less than 500km for it's coast? Wow.


Following the principle of homogeny and national determination, yes.
So the people of the US don't want to(/have never wanted to) be independent of Britain?

I never said that... this is all getting very messy...

It all comes down to this, the people of the falklands are an ethnically and culturally homogenous population who call themselves British and have done for 170 odd years (or at least for generations).

This would create for me a very good 'moral' argument that the islands are British. Legally speaking the League of Nations and the United Nations were both founded on the principle of national self-determination. Democratically speaking as they overwhelmingly want to be British, they should remain British.

The act of acquiring the Islands may have been shoddy, but to take that argument to its 'logical' conclusion would be obscene. With the exception of a few micro-nations I suspect that no country on earth has not been founded on some sort of atrocity or crime.
Fine, fair enough.

If a plebiscite was held and the Falkalanders wanted to be Argentinean I'd be happy with that, Independent, Chinese, Babylonian... its all good. But they are British, they call themselves British and they want to be British.


===

Anyway, you can keep it. No skin of my nose.

No we can't, we suck. A third world sh!thole is probably going to take it whilst our olympic stadia are collapsing on live TV.

Argentina is NOT 3rd world country, if they got advocacy and arms support from Chile and Brazil Argentina may very well take the Falklands; unless we invade mainland Argintina(lol), you are very correct.

They are too far south to be anything other than 3rd world. They can call themselves 2nd world when they stop rebelling and re-enter the Spanish Empire.
Racist.

But anyways... I expect they would get any amount of assistance from such countries and the 'League of Non-aligned nations' (you don't much about them but there the sort of countries that would love to jump on a fake anti-colonial bandwagon).
A South American coalition(-Venezuela, Columbia) would beat the UK in open warfare without Nuclear, minor or major, warfare.

It is incredibly unlikely that America will care, I mean there is oil and Obama might consider it an advantage to keep one country in Europe that still likes them... but it's a bit far fetched.

Of course what our traitor-quisling politicans could have done is forge secret aggreements with Europe, a joint EU force would utterly re-write the political landscape and Britains relations with the EU. Paving the way for the eventual superstate. But that is so utterly far fetched.
Conservatives are Europhobic, though.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2010 10:50:05 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/29/2010 7:32:15 AM, Zetsubou wrote:

Well in 1910 we were the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland not the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, pedantic I know.


Britain is exempt from any negative principles I might state.

Some Brits settled since we owned the area.

Oh right, well no one is actually pressing a claim on South Africa.

"Anglo-Saxons" are not from Anglo-Saxon origin. White is much more accurate Mr klansman.

Firstly that is kinda irrelevant. It is a recognised grouping. Also a number of experts would agree disagree with you. I've said nothing with regards white supremacy so I am not too sure I can be termed a Klansman!

They are too far south to be anything other than 3rd world. They can call themselves 2nd world when they stop rebelling and re-enter the Spanish Empire.
Racist.

Yea... never crossed your mind I might be joking?

But anyways... I expect they would get any amount of assistance from such countries and the 'League of Non-aligned nations' (you don't much about them but there the sort of countries that would love to jump on a fake anti-colonial bandwagon).
A South American coalition(-Venezuela, Columbia) would beat the UK in open warfare without Nuclear, minor or major, warfare.

I would not know the numbers but I would not be suprised.

Conservatives are Europhobic, though.

Not really, but they pretend to be.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/29/2010 2:30:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/29/2010 10:50:05 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/29/2010 7:32:15 AM, Zetsubou wrote:

Well in 1910 we were the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland not the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, pedantic I know.


Britain is exempt from any negative principles I might state.
Y?

Some Brits settled since we owned the area.

Oh right, well no one is actually pressing a claim on South Africa.

"Anglo-Saxons" are not from Anglo-Saxon origin. White is much more accurate Mr klansman.

Firstly that is kinda irrelevant. It is a recognised grouping. Also a number of experts would agree disagree with you. I've said nothing with regards white supremacy so I am not too sure I can be termed a Klansman!
Look, "Anglo-Saxon" is used too lightly, most Brits aren't even "Anglo-Saxon" let alone whites from the colonies. I said Klansman because of the W.A.S.P KKK ideology.

They are too far south to be anything other than 3rd world. They can call themselves 2nd world when they stop rebelling and re-enter the Spanish Empire.
Racist.

Yea... never crossed your mind I might be joking?
Yea

But anyways... I expect they would get any amount of assistance from such countries and the 'League of Non-aligned nations' (you don't much about them but there the sort of countries that would love to jump on a fake anti-colonial bandwagon).
A South American coalition(-Venezuela, Columbia) would beat the UK in open warfare without Nuclear, minor or major, warfare.

I would not know the numbers but I would not be suprised.

Conservatives are Europhobic, though.

Not really, but they pretend to be.
BBC Channel - Change to it right now.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2010 8:58:54 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/28/2010 5:14:47 PM, theLwerd wrote:
I don't see why a huge military is necessary anymore.
Because opposing nations have them.

Who's going to wage war with England?
In 20-30 years, politics might change drastically. It could be the Russians who enter a war with England.

Besides, we have drones,
Those are pretty expensive, but yes.

WMDs and other technology that's starting to make man power obsolete.
Not true. Manpower is always important. Drones are good but they can always experience technical problems. WMD's are illegal and used as a last resort, if they are even going to be used in the future (hopefully not).

Occupation is really what standing armies are useful for,
Precisely.

and like feverish I'm glad to see a cut being made in this area rather than other more useful programs (like ya know, feeding innocent hungry kids).
It is true that feeding poor people is more important, but militaries can be very important. Being part of NATO, a country like GB could intervene in nations who let their people suffer and militarily speaking help these people.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2010 10:12:42 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/30/2010 9:13:30 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 10/30/2010 9:12:20 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
I thought this site was libertarian.
Not yet.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2010 10:14:28 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/30/2010 10:12:42 AM, innomen wrote:
At 10/30/2010 9:13:30 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 10/30/2010 9:12:20 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
I thought this site was libertarian.
Not yet.
That is not a synonym of never!
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2010 10:17:52 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/30/2010 10:14:28 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 10/30/2010 10:12:42 AM, innomen wrote:
At 10/30/2010 9:13:30 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 10/30/2010 9:12:20 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
I thought this site was libertarian.
Not yet.
That is not a synonym of never!

heh heh heh
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2010 10:50:17 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
This site is owned by a Republican, and not the kind that smokes pot, or even tolerates pot.

Britain'll be fine even if it abolishes its military for the foreseeable future, it can free ride like the rest of Europe, because the US electorate doesn't seem to be interested in trying to prevent free riders.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2010 10:52:56 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/30/2010 10:50:17 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
This site is owned by a Republican, and not the kind that smokes pot, or even tolerates pot.

Britain'll be fine even if it abolishes its military for the foreseeable future, it can free ride like the rest of Europe, because the US electorate doesn't seem to be interested in trying to prevent free riders.

Unfortunately we still have global commitments, and the US has never come to our aid on those matters so we can't 'free ride'.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2010 10:58:08 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/30/2010 10:52:56 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/30/2010 10:50:17 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
This site is owned by a Republican, and not the kind that smokes pot, or even tolerates pot.

Britain'll be fine even if it abolishes its military for the foreseeable future, it can free ride like the rest of Europe, because the US electorate doesn't seem to be interested in trying to prevent free riders.

Unfortunately we still have global commitments, and the US has never come to our aid on those matters so we can't 'free ride'.

Say you lose the Falkland Islands. Who gives a ****? Your case for keeping the Falkland islands essentially amounts to "We've always had it." That's stupid. What actual use and to whom is there in you "keeping that commitment?"
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2010 11:07:55 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/30/2010 10:58:08 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 10/30/2010 10:52:56 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 10/30/2010 10:50:17 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
This site is owned by a Republican, and not the kind that smokes pot, or even tolerates pot.

Britain'll be fine even if it abolishes its military for the foreseeable future, it can free ride like the rest of Europe, because the US electorate doesn't seem to be interested in trying to prevent free riders.

Unfortunately we still have global commitments, and the US has never come to our aid on those matters so we can't 'free ride'.

Say you lose the Falkland Islands. Who gives a ****? Your case for keeping the Falkland islands essentially amounts to "We've always had it." That's stupid. What actual use and to whom is there in you "keeping that commitment?"

It's full of British people, and none of what you said addresses my post.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.