Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/22/11 10:27 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 6/19/11 01:13 PM, Ledgey wrote: I would actually seriously love to hear you justify fighting Britain over it. Go on, I'd love to hear this.

Meh. I have seriously lost interest in this topic. So here's the half-assed answer: Monroe Doctrine.

'The Monroe Doctrine asserted that the Americas were not to be further colonized by European countries but that the United States would neither interfere with existing European colonies nor meddle in the internal concerns of European countries.'

Pay attention to the wording in particular the last clause. By going against the will of the Falkland Islanders to remain British the US would be interfering with an existing overseas territory and meddling in the internal affairs of UK. If anything, the Monroe Doctrine actually argues the US should support hte UK's position on the Falklands

How about 60 billion barrels of oil underneath its coastal waters. And last year the British company Rockhopper started drilling for said oil, prompting an "oh shit" response from Argentina. I do have to remark here that I find it funny how having 3,000 shepherds on a bunch of desolate islands can grant you exclusive access to enormous loads of natural resources. But hey, that's how the world turns, I guess. Anyway, if Britain really doesn't want to risk a military conflict over the islands, maybe they could try to work some sort of deal with the Argentineans for shared drilling.

Those 3.000 people have populated the island for centuries. I don't think oil is enough reason to exploit their sovereignty and their right for self-determination. The UK does not need to work any deal over with Argentina. They have as much right to the island as bloody Thailand.

At 6/22/11 03:21 AM, lapis wrote: How about 60 billion barrels of oil underneath its coastal waters.

Not really, we want Malvinas because they're righfully ours, or so we are told. I think it's the last unresolved issue of our sovereignty. They were unlawfully (ie, through force) taken from us in 1833 and have remained in British control ever since. The Malvinas march is from the first half of the 20th century, and the war from 1982, way before any oil was discovered. It's a national pride issue, and boy are we a proud nation. Borges described the war as "the struggle of two bald men over a comb", and it was used as an example of irrational behavior in my (American) microeconomics textbook.

And about the "natives", they are the descendants of the British invaders, of course they are going to choose Britain over Argentina. They're pathetic, Britain didn't consider them equals until the 1982 invasion.

At 6/29/11 04:15 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:

At 6/22/11 03:21 AM, lapis wrote: How about 60 billion barrels of oil underneath its coastal waters.

Not really, we want Malvinas because they're righfully ours, or so we are told. I think it's the last unresolved issue of our sovereignty. They were unlawfully (ie, through force) taken from us in 1833 and have remained in British control ever since. The Malvinas march is from the first half of the 20th century, and the war from 1982, way before any oil was discovered. It's a national pride issue, and boy are we a proud nation. Borges described the war as "the struggle of two bald men over a comb", and it was used as an example of irrational behavior in my (American) microeconomics textbook.

And about the "natives", they are the descendants of the British invaders, of course they are going to choose Britain over Argentina. They're pathetic, Britain didn't consider them equals until the 1982 invasion.

So, in other words, your only claim to the Falklands is a nationalist pride thing? Because you (sort of) lost them centuries ago? That's absolutely hilarious. You can't toy with the lives of 3,000 people just because you're insecure about your national identity. It's an island of people who don't want you on their island. They've owned it for generations; why can't Argentina accept that and move on with their lives? We've always maintained it's up to the islanders and it's not part of some British feeling to maintain the last remnants of the empire.

I'd say that trying to impose rule on these people is more pathetic than the people themselves... Using huge military force just to compensate for Argentina's political penis size is pathetic.

At 6/29/11 06:07 PM, Ledgey wrote:
I'd say that trying to impose rule on these people is more pathetic than the people themselves... Using huge military force just to compensate for Argentina's political penis size is pathetic.

Political power flows from the barrel of a gun.

That last quip of yours is quite pathetic.

Political power flows from the barrel of a gun.

That last quip of yours is quite pathetic.

Of course it does, but it doesn't mean that it's not pathetic. Declaring war for nationalistic purposes is silly, as are many other reasons for war. My quip therefore, is not pathetic (unless you take my failed attempt at humour seriously).

At 6/23/11 07:21 AM, Dogbert581 wrote: 'The Monroe Doctrine asserted that the Americas were not to be further colonized by European countries but that the United States would neither interfere with existing European colonies nor meddle in the internal concerns of European countries.'

Pay attention to the wording in particular the last clause. By going against the will of the Falkland Islanders to remain British the US would be interfering with an existing overseas territory and meddling in the internal affairs of UK. If anything, the Monroe Doctrine actually argues the US should support hte UK's position on the Falklands

Except that wasn't the case since the Spanish American war. After that Europe just accepted America was full of shit when it came to imperialism and asked to be buddies.

At 6/29/11 09:29 PM, Ledgey wrote:
Of course it does, but it doesn't mean that it's not pathetic. Declaring war for nationalistic purposes is silly, as are many other reasons for war. My quip therefore, is not pathetic (unless you take my failed attempt at humour seriously).

Backpedaling an insult and claiming it was humor is pathetic.

Backpedaling an insult and claiming it was humor is pathetic.

I see this is becoming a trend, which is rather pathetic :)

At 6/30/11 12:53 PM, Ledgey wrote:

Backpedaling an insult and claiming it was humor is pathetic.

I see this is becoming a trend, which is rather pathetic :)

but yeah, I never backpedaled, I stand by what I said. The Falklands war and the continuing argument is over silly nationalistic purposes.

At 6/30/11 12:53 PM, Ledgey wrote:

Backpedaling an insult and claiming it was humor is pathetic.

I see this is becoming a trend, which is rather pathetic :)

Then maybe you should stop.

At 6/30/11 02:56 PM, JohnnyDamon wrote:

At 6/30/11 12:53 PM, Ledgey wrote:

Backpedaling an insult and claiming it was humor is pathetic.

I see this is becoming a trend, which is rather pathetic :)

Then maybe you should stop.

maybe you should get back on topic 8)

At 6/30/11 03:28 PM, Ledgey wrote:

At 6/30/11 02:56 PM, JohnnyDamon wrote:

At 6/30/11 12:53 PM, Ledgey wrote:

Backpedaling an insult and claiming it was humor is pathetic.

I see this is becoming a trend, which is rather pathetic :)

Then maybe you should stop.

maybe you should get back on topic 8)

Indeed you should.

At 6/29/11 04:15 PM, Der-Lowe wrote:

Not really, we want Malvinas because they're righfully ours, or so we are told. I think it's the last unresolved issue of our sovereignty. They were unlawfully (ie, through force) taken from us in 1833 and have remained in British control ever since.

Making it rightfully British territory. With that line of reasoning, Argentina should belong to the natives who were conquered centuries ago. Anyone of European descent should either move back to Europe. Conquest is legal.

And about the "natives", they are the descendants of the British invaders, of course they are going to choose Britain over Argentina. They're pathetic, Britain didn't consider them equals until the 1982 invasion.

If you want it, take it by force. that's the law of nature. If you can't beat back those who control it and take it for yourself, then you don't own it.

At 6/29/11 06:37 PM, JohnnyDamon wrote:

Political power flows from the barrel of a gun.

That last quip of yours is quite pathetic.

pathetic it may be, but it does more or less sum it up nicely.