Britain Argentina Is Trying To Get the Falklands Again

[Sergeant Foley]

No just because a country wants it does not make it imperialism.
As for your example of Cuba that does not really work, Cuba is an independent nation. If you are talking about in the past yes America got independence first, while Cuba was still part of Spain. But America started as an English colony, Cuba as a Spanish colony. They weren't really related.
Your arguments about it being no man's land and not having any human habitation however are much more persuasive.


Obviously the fact that Argentina is not letting it go means it was not settled.
But just a question you say the locals want to be part of the UK. Would you say the same to the locals of Crimea if they said they did not want to be part of Ukraine, or would you say no? Before you bring up "Oh the elections aren't legitimate!" assume they are, the people in Crimea say they are Russian and don't want to be part of Ukraine they would prefer being part of Russia but would settle for independence or being part of another state that is not Ukraine. Would you accept that or would you say no that Ukraine still gets it?

Blocked FOREVER!

 

[Husky_Khan]

Argentina had a chance to persuade Britain to peacefully draw the Falklands into their sphere of influence in the 60's and 70's, often with the seeming approval of successive British governments. But then they chose military force instead of ongoing diplomatic and social overtures. Then their attempt at military force failed miserably. If Argentina never enacted the Falklands War back in 1982, history likely would've been far different in regards to the whole affair.

But Argentina elected to pursue a military solution, now the only way they will get the islands is via a military solution. That's the path they chose.

Blocked FOREVER!

Only a Sith speaks in absolutes!

 

[King Arts]

Blocked FOREVER!

Lol don’t be a drama whore if you want to block someone just block them. Don’t try and get sjw points by saying it and then bolding the text and writing forever in all caps.

 

[Marduk]

I mean this argument would only work if America seceded from the same nation that owned Cuba. English colonists were different than Spanish. If you used Canada then it would work.

If both are in Cuba as imperialist colonizers, what makes one imperialists more legitimate than the other?

I mean not really I’d point to Germany they renounced all claims on former eastern lands. Does Poland really think Germans are getting ready for round 3?

Russia renounced claims to Crimea in the Budapest Memorandum by affirming Ukraine's borders in their shape at that time, and where are we now.

I was not bringing it up for the historical analogy, I was bringing it up to challenge Bacle support based on “it’s what the local people want”

Which still makes it a bad example, as forced population removals/settlements are involved.

 

[King Arts]

If both are in Cuba as imperialist colonizers, what makes one imperialists more legitimate than the other?

The similarities in culture. Spain while oppressive towards Cuba was related to them. Most Cubans were mostly Spaniards. Also the English were not in Cuba.

Russia renounced claims to Crimea in the Budapest Memorandum by affirming Ukraine's borders in their shape at that time, and where are we now.

Did they act like it, or did they treat Ukraine like it was in their sphere of influence and ownership of crimea was contingent upon that?

Which still makes it a bad example, as forced population removals/settlements are involved.

Not in the modern day I mean bringing up things from ww2 with kalingrad where children grew up and had children in that area makes them local.


Another issue to consider though is while the British owning Falklands lets them build naval bases close to Argentina. By itself this isn’t enough to say they deserve to own it, but before the war they would have good cause to demand the islands be demilitarized and no British military presence there with a treaty. I mean imagine if technology improves and china builds two UK sized islands 100 miles from California and 100 miles from New York, then moves people there. America would not be happy.

 

[Marduk]

The similarities in culture. Spain while oppressive towards Cuba was related to them. Most Cubans were mostly Spaniards. Also the English were not in Cuba.

Why are Cubans similar to Spain in culture?
Oh, wait...
Are you implying that settler colonialism and cultural assimilation (absolutely not necessarily voluntary) is something you consider a get out of jail free card for accusations of imperialism?

Did they act like it, or did they treat Ukraine like it was in their sphere of influence and ownership of crimea was contingent upon that?

These things had absolutely no legal or diplomatic grounding at all, and considering the other countries that signed the Budapest Memorandum, asking that raises more questions than it answers.
Perhaps Ukraine was in UK's sphere of influence all along? After all UK signed the Budapest Memorandum too, and who knows what they were thinking, flashbacks to Crimean War perhaps?

Not in the modern day I mean bringing up things from ww2 with kalingrad where children grew up and had children in that area makes them local.

So you think the difference between evil imperialist colonialism and legitimate ownership forever is ~40 years, that's it?

Another issue to consider though is while the British owning Falklands lets them build naval bases close to Argentina. By itself this isn’t enough to say they deserve to own it, but before the war they would have good cause to demand the islands be demilitarized and no British military presence there with a treaty.

That's beyond any established respectable arguments regarding sovereignty of any lands, it's creative casus belli seeking logic. By that logic Kaliningrad is completely done for even besides any arguments of historical ownership and Russian imperialism. It's just simply a threat to Poland and Baltics, that's it, and should be demilitarized at least.
Also no Russian military presence in Crimea or Belarus.
You know damn well Russia would laugh that out of the room.

Why should UK make concessions to Argentina as if it lost a war, even though it didn't lose a war, and later on there was a war, UK won?

There is simply no established right for countries to demand that other countries fuck off with their own military from nearby international waters, allied states, or above all, own territories, just because they feel uncomfortable with that. And if there was one, it would be a generous source of free casus belli to dozens upon dozens of state.

I mean imagine if technology improves and china builds two UK sized islands 100 miles from California and 100 miles from New York, then moves people there. America would not be happy.

If we are talking such science fiction, USA follows up by building land bridges between Japanese islands, South Korea, Taiwan, Philippines and Vietnam, completely cutting off China from the Pacific and these islands.

Irrelevant, UK didn't build Falklands, and building islands is something so far not really covered properly by international law.

 

[Sergeant Foley]

Argentina had a chance to persuade Britain to peacefully draw the Falklands into their sphere of influence in the 60's and 70's, often with the seeming approval of successive British governments. But then they chose military force instead of ongoing diplomatic and social overtures. Then their attempt at military force failed miserably. If Argentina never enacted the Falklands War back in 1982, history likely would've been far different in regards to the whole affair.

But Argentina elected to pursue a military solution, now the only way they will get the islands is via a military solution. That's the path they chose.



Only a Sith speaks in absolutes!

A Sith? Can you please define the meaning of that term?

 

[King Arts]

Why are Cubans similar to Spain in culture?
Oh, wait...
Are you implying that settler colonialism and cultural assimilation (absolutely not necessarily voluntary) is something you consider a get out of jail free card for accusations of imperialism?

Ummm Cubans are more Spanish than native. Most of the indigenous Cubans died and Spanish colonists went there, this is diffrent from Mexico and the rest of South America the islands in the Caribbean fucked them over. So it doesen't really count as colonialism and cultural assimilation any more than what the British did in North America the people did not assimiliate they were already of that culture.

These things had absolutely no legal or diplomatic grounding at all, and considering the other countries that signed the Budapest Memorandum, asking that raises more questions than it answers.
Perhaps Ukraine was in UK's sphere of influence all along? After all UK signed the Budapest Memorandum too, and who knows what they were thinking, flashbacks to Crimean War perhaps?

A modern day great game? Anyway I do think that Russia is in the wrong I think I said that.

So you think the difference between evil imperialist colonialism and legitimate ownership forever is ~40 years, that's it?

The time limit is a generation also Kalingrad/Koiningsburg is owned for like 80 years The got it in 45. From 1940 to 2020 is 80 years. But as for me I was talking to Bacle about his arguments about local self determination. That only applies to modern day. So you have to say the people who were born their are locals. I am sympathetic towards claims of historical ownership so I would not protest if Germany or Poland took the city as long as they used to own it.(As long as they don't oppress the locals and let them live and keep their culture/language/and religion.)

That's beyond any established respectable arguments regarding sovereignty of any lands, it's creative casus belli seeking logic. By that logic Kaliningrad is completely done for even besides any arguments of historical ownership and Russian imperialism. It's just simply a threat to Poland and Baltics, that's it, and should be demilitarized at least.
Also no Russian military presence in Crimea or Belarus.
You know damn well Russia would laugh that out of the room.

Why should UK make concessions to Argentina as if it lost a war, even though it didn't lose a war, and later on there was a war, UK won?

There is simply no established right for countries to demand that other countries fuck off with their own military from nearby international waters, allied states, or above all, own territories, just because they feel uncomfortable with that. And if there was one, it would be a generous source of free casus belli to dozens upon dozens of state.

I mean Kalingrad should be demiltarized, there isn't a legitimate reason to have armies there as the area is not defensible with conventional means. But it could be used as a jump off point to invade. But beyond that America's actions in the Cuban missle crisis kinda disproves your point. Unless you are saying that the U.S. should have been ok with missles in Cuba?

If we are talking such science fiction, USA follows up by building land bridges between Japanese islands, South Korea, Taiwan, Philippines and Vietnam, completely cutting off China from the Pacific and these islands.

Irrelevant, UK didn't build Falklands, and building islands is something so far not really covered properly by international law.

And France, Germany, and Russia will build a land bridge to the UK to remove the power of the Royal Navy.

Calling it irrelevant is just dismissing it with no reason, international law is more of a wink and a nudge and we can speculate based on how things are now. After all why should man made islands be treated diffrent from ones made by God? So China creates an islands in the pacific and Atlantic right next to the US changing geography to remove the greatest boon America benefits from two moats seperating it from the other great powers in europe and asia.

 

[Marduk]

Ummm Cubans are more Spanish than native. Most of the indigenous Cubans died and Spanish colonists went there, this is diffrent from Mexico and the rest of South America the islands in the Caribbean fucked them over. So it doesen't really count as colonialism and cultural assimilation any more than what the British did in North America the people did not assimiliate they were already of that culture.

And both are commonly recognized cases of colonialism.

The time limit is a generation also Kalingrad/Koiningsburg is owned for like 80 years The got it in 45. From 1940 to 2020 is 80 years.

40 years, 80 years, whatever. The question is - are we talking law, pragmatism, justice? In either case, why would "legitimate ownership of the land" be a question of essentially a national game of King of the Hill, where a country can just invade with no good justification at all, but if it manages to take the place, settle it, and hold it against potential counterattacks by the other side or its allies for X decades, whether X is 4, 6, 8 or 10, suddenly everyone is supposed to recognize them as the legitimate owner and recognize their ownership of the place and in fact be outraged at the previous owner for continuing to want it back?

I mean Kalingrad should be demiltarized, there isn't a legitimate reason to have armies there as the area is not defensible with conventional means. But it could be used as a jump off point to invade. But beyond that America's actions in the Cuban missle crisis kinda disproves your point. Unless you are saying that the U.S. should have been ok with missles in Cuba?

No, it wasn't "missiles", missiles aren't made equal, it was Cuban nuclear ballistic missile crisis. Those missiles are the ones that got all the press, but not many people know that Soviets have kept a whole bunch of troops and even some combat aircraft for decades after the crisis.

The Soviet Military Buildup in Cuba

(Archived document, may contain errors)

www.heritage.org

So if anything, if you want to use Cuban Missile Crisis as the yardstick, it has established nuclear ballistic missiles as the red line, not general military presence.
Specifically in threateningly placed third party countries, because if we are talking technically own island/exclave, then Russia is already crossing it, keeping such missiles in Kaliningrad, and possibly also Crimea.

And France, Germany, and Russia will build a land bridge to the UK to remove the power of the Royal Navy.

Calling it irrelevant is just dismissing it with no reason, international law is more of a wink and a nudge and we can speculate based on how things are now. After all why should man made islands be treated diffrent from ones made by God? So China creates an islands in the pacific and Atlantic right next to the US changing geography to remove the greatest boon America benefits from two moats seperating it from the other great powers in europe and asia.

You're the one who started with China building UK sized islands in the middle of deep Pacific. This is science fiction. Of course international law and custom are not designed to handle situations that require 40k level industrial technology to make happen.
Just like existing laws don't handle interstellar warships, unaging supersoldiers and psionic power users.
Meanwhile, natural islands, well, they were there, they were up for grabs by whoever shown up, if you really cared about it, should have claimed and settled it first.

If we go back to reality, building islands is something that can be used for little more than legal trolling and small to medium military bases, on reefs that already have minimal depth.
And yes, there are some international laws related to it.

Massive Island-Building and International Law | Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative

Within the short span of a year, China’s rapid construction of artificial islands in the disputed Spratlys has radically changed the geographical and security landscapes in the South China Sea. This island construction has so far created over eight million square metres of real estate in the...

amti.csis.org

For one if you do it within the most extended EEZ, the country in question may send their navy to ask wtf are you doing there.
But besides that, environmental law and so on, it's down to economic zone and territorial water disputes, UN, courts, and navy shenanigans too.

 

[stephen the barbarian]

Isla Grande de Teirra del Feugo

but then they'd be at war with their neighbor, and unless you're the us that's a potentiality long, costly endeavor.

 

[Cherico]

but then they'd be at war with their neighbor, and unless you're the us that's a potentiality long, costly endeavor.

Chile has just under 20 million people, Argentina has over 47 million people, the logistics actually make sense.

Its a medium risk high reward senerio with a built in ally in Bolvia who would do almost anything to have a coridore to the sea. Meanwhile the falklands is high risk low reward.

You likely get your shit pushed in and even if you do win whats your reward? A couple of shitty islands. Meanwhile you go toe to toe with Chile and you gain control of some of the most important straits in the world. If your going to go to war you should look for gains that actually matter.

 

[ATP]

>imperialism
Just because a third world country wants it doesn't make it imperialism to not give it to them.
Just because it's closer to you by sea than the other guy doesn't mean it's yours, if that was the case Cuba would have been a US state because it's closer to USA than to Spain.
Falklands were no man's land until 18th century, actually not inhabited by anyone.
Then Spain and Britain settled them non-permanently as a convenient stop point for ships and had a bit of a spat over it. Then the Spanish left, island also still had no permanent residents, it was just a occasional base for fishermen of various countries. Then UK and proto-Argentina had their first spat over claims, which UK won, and then settled them with own people. And that's where the history ends, besides Argentine's well known attempt to take them by force.
So, where's the imperialism? The vast majority of the island's inhabitants want nothing to do with Argentina nor independence, so it's Argentina that's being imperialist here.

Wolves lived there! or foxes? but bad evul brits killed them.
So,gave those island to long extinc wolves/foxes !

 

[Marduk]

Chile has just under 20 million people, Argentina has over 47 million people, the logistics actually make sense.

Its a medium risk high reward senerio with a built in ally in Bolvia who would do almost anything to have a coridore to the sea. Meanwhile the falklands is high risk low reward.

You likely get your shit pushed in and even if you do win whats your reward? A couple of shitty islands. Meanwhile you go toe to toe with Chile and you gain control of some of the most important straits in the world. If your going to go to war you should look for gains that actually matter.

As usual, details. Not only Chile has great terrain to defend that border (mountains!), what lies behind them is an actually modern army not really smaller than what Argentina has. But definitely scarier. Chile has its mechanized forces build around Leopards 2 and upgraded 1's with Marders as IFVs, while Argentina has a slightly higher number of tanks, but those are light tanks old and new, and half the number of IFVs (also Marders).
Bolivia is much poorer than these two and a warm body based army, their utility in the war is... questionable.

 

[Cherico]

As usual, details. Not only Chile has great terrain to defend that border (mountains!), what lies behind them is an actually modern army not really smaller than what Argentina has. But definitely scarier. Chile has its mechanized forces build around Leopards 2 and upgraded 1's with Marders as IFVs, while Argentina has a slightly higher number of tanks, but those are light tanks old and new, and half the number of IFVs (also Marders).
Bolivia is much poorer than these two and a warm body based army, their utility in the war is... questionable.

And yet that conflict is actually winnable, and the one against Great britian involves a much more intense naval fight against one of the best navies on the planet with the reward....of a couple shitty islands.

I mean either don't go to war in the first place which is likely the best move for Argentina and focus on building up what you have or if you have to go to war go to war for actual gains.

 

[Knowledgeispower]

i will note that any attempt to go after the falklands militarily will unlike the 80s likely result in the USN and probably at least a couple other NATO nation's navies sailing along to reinforce the RN as it sails south since to be blunt its not the cold war anymore.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Sinking the Argie Navy would be the sort of thing that could unite my country.

So Buenos Airez can knock itself out if it wishes.

But yes, the Falklands are British. And if it takes ten thousand dead Argies to hammer home the point, then so be it.

 

[PsihoKekec]

Argie Navy is already sunk, so Sunak will have to find another trick to unite the people behind him.

 

[Cherico]

Argie Navy is already sunk, so Sunak will have to find another trick to unite the people behind him.

Good governances, rule of law, and a respect for property rights?

 

[PsihoKekec]

That would require him to break allegiance to globohomo, so nope.