Falklands: a historical time

[Caustic Logic]

Jorge, I was being a smart-ass more than ripping on you. Your work might be important - my point was you think it is, so why shouldn't you promote it?

I think Jorge's being a bit vague (speaking of "factors" and etc.), and also misunderstood. I don't think he's for Argentine control, but total independence (right?).

I wonder
#1 how much of a nation they could be, population and industry-wise. Must be something, or there'd be no bickering
#2 If Argentina gets no claim, what's the great universal reason England, thousands of miles away, gets control?
#3 Should the Florida keys belong to Florida, to Spain or Inida, or to themselves?
#4 Treaties, free choice, force and compulsion, vast aquatic empires cherished by English-speakers, Argentine screw-ups and distraction, past complaints and annoyances, etc. All play in here.
#5 Was independence one of the choices on the referendum, or was the pro-British vote out of two options only?
#6 I don't really know what I'm talking about and not even trying hard to get into it, sorry.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Oh total independence? That's awesome! How many Falklanders wanted that again?

Oh yeah. 15, or 1.66% of the total vote.

Even if you assume that all spoiled ballots and all non voters who were eligible to vote supported independence that still makes up a whopping 148 compared to 869 who supported staying part of the UK.

Now, this was back in 1986, but I somehow doubt that things have changed much over there. Why would anyone run roughshod over the opinions of these people just because they think it is correct to do so?

 

[Virus]

Argentina is such a dysfunctional piece of crap that one of their ships sank at port because nobody noticed it had a hole in the side.

And it's illegal for economists to question the bogus inflation figures the government puts out.

Who'd want to be sovereign territory of a dysfunctional piece of crap?

 

[Caustic Logic]

Oh total independence? That's awesome! How many Falklanders wanted that again?

Oh yeah. 15, or 1.66% of the total vote.

Even if you assume that all spoiled ballots and all non voters who were eligible to vote supported independence that still makes up a whopping 148 compared to 869 who supported staying part of the UK.

Now, this was back in 1986, but I somehow doubt that things have changed much over there. Why would anyone run roughshod over the opinions of these people just because they think it is correct to do so?

Fair enough. If those are the three options, with 3 for Argentina, 15 for independence, and the rest, something near 98% of the people, voted for Britain, then that's what they should have had. If the election was rigged (and 98% does sometimes suggest that, in bad guy countries), it needs to be settled. If the people really voted that way and were wrong and misled, they need to learn or be taught that and demand a re-vote.

They're voting again now? I guess because Argentina forced them to try again and hope for more than 3 this time? Sorry, way behind.

Also, these very low numbers suggest a really tiny voting population. Not really adequate for independence, but despite the proximity and basic geographical logic, economic factors and whatever mean Argentina is not to be it. The moon men are too far away, and England has papers signed after they amassed more floating cannons in one spot than the Spanish owners did. Plus the hearts and minds of the voters there. So, hey, it's pretty sure to stay British.

 

[Juxtapose]

Islanders - what, some kind of canoe-rowing injuns? Probably have some silly language they're trying to preserve and whatnot? I hope the Falklands stays as British as possible, so Janadele can feel safe there. Any place that can become or remain as British as possible, should. End of story.

"Canoe-rowing injuns"? have a look at a map to see where the islands are. Do you really think the islands would have "canoe-rowing injuns" on it? Also, you do realise there were/are no indigenous peoples on the islands, yes?

I wonder
#1 how much of a nation they could be, population and industry-wise. Must be something, or there'd be no bickering
#2 If Argentina gets no claim, what's the great universal reason England, thousands of miles away, gets control?
#3 Should the Florida keys belong to Florida, to Spain or Inida, or to themselves?
#4 Treaties, free choice, force and compulsion, vast aquatic empires cherished by English-speakers, Argentine screw-ups and distraction, past complaints and annoyances, etc. All play in here.
#5 Was independence one of the choices on the referendum, or was the pro-British vote out of two options only?
#6 I don't really know what I'm talking about and not even trying hard to get into it, sorry.

#1 I don't believe they will ever want this as their income is mostly tourism, fishing rights and sheep.
#2 It has nothing to do with England. The Islands are a British Overseas Territory who enjoy a large degree of internal self-government.
#3 I really have no clue what this has to do with this discussion.
#4 These are also enjoyed by Portuguese/Dutch/French/Spanish speakers the world over.
#5 Already answered by a previous poster above.
#6 Maybe you should at least have a cursory glance at the history of the islands before commenting in a thread on the subject.

Fair enough. If those are the three options, with 3 for Argentina, 15 for independence, and the rest, something near 98% of the people, voted for Britain, then that's what they should have had. If the election was rigged (and 98% does sometimes suggest that, in bad guy countries), it needs to be settled. If the people really voted that way and were wrong and misled, they need to learn or be taught that and demand a re-vote.

They're voting again now? I guess because Argentina forced them to try again and hope for more than 3 this time? Sorry, way behind.

Also, these very low numbers suggest a really tiny voting population. Not really adequate for independence, but despite the proximity and basic geographical logic, economic factors and whatever mean Argentina is not to be it. The moon men are too far away, and England has papers signed after they amassed more floating cannons in one spot than the Spanish owners did. Plus the hearts and minds of the voters there. So, hey, it's pretty sure to stay British.

Why would the elections need to be rigged? Again, if you had even a tiny amount of knowledge with regard to the falklands, you would be aware that the vast majority of the population were settlers from UK. This might explain why they historically, and currently, want to retain their historical ties with UK.

 

[Doctor Plop]

Maybe this is cyclical.
Thirty years - enough time to produce a fresh crop of shivering conscripts for the Paras to dispense with.

 

[Caustic Logic]

"Canoe-rowing injuns"? have a look at a map to see where the islands are. Do you really think the islands would have "canoe-rowing injuns" on it?

In the ocean? I meant ocean-going canoe-like vessels. I was being smrat-ass, ridiculing a made-up racist view of the natives there..

Also, you do realise there were/are no indigenous peoples on the islands, yes?

I guess not. Really, none? Argentian's native chased giant birds and were sparsely populated I know, so Imagined a few would row over and settle.

Also, I know native can mean many things besides pre-Columbian inhabitants and just wasn't sure here. Jus' havin' me some fun, mate.

#2 It has nothing to do with England. The Islands are a British Overseas Territory who enjoy a large degree of internal self-government.

Sorry, a slight majority of Britain as organized progressively under English control, with certain rights and self-rule allowed, etc. Not England.

#3 I really have no clue what this has to do with this discussion.

Don't worry about it.

#6 Maybe you should at least have a cursory glance at the history of the islands before commenting in a thread on the subject.

Eh, I usually do. It's fun to just jump in sometimes, though.I gather a lot of people here do that.

Why would the elections need to be rigged?

To get a result other than what thepeople want, duh. It's all hypothetical-I said if. Let's call it a really big if.

Again, if you had even a tiny amount of knowledge with regard to the falklands, you would be aware that the vast majority of the population were settlers from UK. This might explain why they historically, and currently, want to retain their historical ties with UK.

Ah, so like with Northern Ireland. Got it. That's a pretty good strategy. If you can keep enough poverty-stricken Argentine mongrels from moving over, you can manage 98% votes without rigging. Pretty smart.

Of course, maybe, if I knew more, I wouldn't be such a smart-ass about that. But then, I'm not sure what I'd know. I'm happy with the mystery. I leave it to the Falklanders and/or whoever and/or their navies to settle it as they will anyway.

 

[zooterkin]

In the ocean? I meant ocean-going canoe-like vessels. I was being smrat-ass, ridiculing a made-up racist view of the natives there..


I guess not. Really, none? Argentian's native chased giant birds and were sparsely populated I know, so Imagined a few would row over and settle.

Buenos Aires to Port Stanley: 1180 miles. Should only take a couple of hours of paddling.

 

[McHrozni]

Not really adequate for independence, but despite the proximity and basic geographical logic, economic factors and whatever mean Argentina is not to be it.

By the same standard Canada should be divided into US States #51 to 58. I'm certain we could find more than three Canadians that would support the idea, so it would actually be more democratic than Argentina obtaining the Falklands.

McHrozni

 

[WildCat]

I guess not.

So you're just as well informed on the Falklands as every other topic you post about here.

 

[Garrison]

Argentina is such a dysfunctional piece of crap that one of their ships sank at port because nobody noticed it had a hole in the side.

It's even more pathetic when you realize that the ARA Santisima Trinidad was effectively the command ship for the 1982 invasion. Interestingly it was one of two ships in its class the Argentines commissioned. One was built in Britain the other in Argentina, guess which proved more robust and is still in service?

Oh and if anyone wants to read something slightly more plausible that Argentina getting sovereignty try:

The Fireflies Of Port Stanley

A somewhat tongue in cheek tale of three lovingly preserved WWII tanks causing havoc in the 1982 invasion.

 

[Caustic Logic]

So you're just as well informed on the Falklands as every other topic you post about here.

You of all should know better than to say that. I'm still waiting for your thread on the Syrian government's claims it was a car bomb that blew up Aleppo University. It'll be completely free of any exact quote from any official.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Irrespective of your actions and knowledge or lack of in any other situation in this thread you came in, accused a British colony of being full of simple natives and expounded that by making a comment mocking racist attitudes towards them that you assumed of the Brits as far as I can tell. Then you made the assumption that the Argentinans had the largest "non native" population on the Islands just because they're closer, make a bizarre assumption that the nation must be worth something despite a 30 second Wikipedia search being sufficient to prove you wrong, and then went on to effectively accuse the British government of hoodwinking the "natives" by possibly rigging an election.

You may well like to "jump right in" as you call it, but as far as I'm concerned instead of "jumping right in" and educating yourself you instead looked like an idiot and made a whole lot of incredibly offensive comments based on your assumptions about a place you couldn't even be bothered to google beforehand just to check if anything you were saying was accurate.

 

[WildCat]

Irrespective of your actions and knowledge or lack of in any other situation in this thread you came in, accused a British colony of being full of simple natives and expounded that by making a comment mocking racist attitudes towards them that you assumed of the Brits as far as I can tell. Then you made the assumption that the Argentinans had the largest "non native" population on the Islands just because they're closer, make a bizarre assumption that the nation must be worth something despite a 30 second Wikipedia search being sufficient to prove you wrong, and then went on to effectively accuse the British government of hoodwinking the "natives" by possibly rigging an election.

You may well like to "jump right in" as you call it, but as far as I'm concerned instead of "jumping right in" and educating yourself you instead looked like an idiot and made a whole lot of incredibly offensive comments based on your assumptions about a place you couldn't even be bothered to google beforehand just to check if anything you were saying was accurate.

Google? That's controlled by THEM.

 

[geni]

Argentina is such a dysfunctional piece of crap that one of their ships sank at port because nobody noticed it had a hole in the side.

More common than you might think. Modern ships are so large that for the most part you are reduced to guessing based on the flow through the bilge pumps.

 

[geni]

Incerdently does anyone know how geologicaly stable the falklands are now that cumbria has said no to a nuclear waste dump?

 

[Caustic Logic]

If I actually offended anyone with my flippant remarks, I apologize for that, and for nothing else.

 

[Caustic Logic]

...accused a British colony of being full of simple natives

You added "simple," although I suggested it in what I've explained wasn't my real voice - almost its opposite, really. Further, you seem to suggest this charge of "simple native" habitation is one of the offensive things I said. It's an "accusation."

Tell me, o master of inoffensiveness, is it really bad or insulting to "accuse" the Falklands of "being full of simple natives" instead of almost strictly upright, industrious, and civilized Brits? And if so, why?

 

[WildCat]

If I actually offended anyone with my flippant remarks, I apologize for that, and for nothing else.

It's not that you offended anyone, it's your propensity for jumping in with knee-jerk opinions about things you are deeply ignorant about.

For example, not even knowing the makeup or history of the Falkland Islands population and assuning they were "canoe rowing Indians".

Par for the course for conspiracy theorists.

 

[Caustic Logic]

It's not that you offended anyone, it's your propensity for jumping in with knee-jerk opinions about things you are deeply ignorant about.

For example, not even knowing the makeup or history of the Falkland Islands population and assuning they were "canoe rowing Indians".

Par for the course for conspiracy theorists.

Propensity? Please. Conspiracy theorist...okay, fair 'nuff but for the negative connotations.

Yeah, here, I lipped off for fun, knowing nothing.

But that's not what I was talking about, and you (should) know it. Feel free to pay attention or, par for the course with with Wild Cat, don't.