Originally posted by ludwigvonmises003
reply to post by newyorkee
USA has its mistakes and crimes.Let Ron Paul come he will clean up the mess.UK they mass murdered 1.8 billion people in India only.
Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by newyorkee
Kind of the point though, no? This is one of the few cases around the world where there were NO natives. Therefore, under International Law, it really is a case "it's ours because we have a flag in it".
If the people the populate the Islands (from British stock) decide they wish to belong to Argentina then fine, that is their right. However, they don't - they wish to remain British.
Any other argument is really redundant against that.
Originally posted by newyorkee
reply to post by Twiptwop
wow.....
so england and france has a claim to it over Argentinas natives......yes they are a mix of both European and natives....but really .....England on the other side of the globe has more right....makes more sense for them to have it.....over a country right next to it.....which all of the other countries on the continent agree has claim to it....
its just wrong.....you NEED to get technical and picky to overcome the logical conclusion.....enjoy your land and let others enjoy theirs.....unless you dont care....or are looking for YOUR peoples best interest....
Originally posted by ludwigvonmises003
reply to post by michael1983l
Read the Monroe Doctrine.All of the Americas belongs to the USA.Not a piece to the colonial british.Secondly,Falklands has large reserves of oil 50-80 billion Barrels.Thus USA must liberate it from British oppression.
Originally posted by newyorkee
reply to post by Twiptwop
yeah no people there sure.....so if you dont have people there you can just move on in even though its in someones territory....
and its the same policy as straight of gibraltar....and there were people there.....they just were replaced by English settlers
The Falkland Islands were uninhabited when discovered by Europeans, but recent discoveries of arrowheads in Lafonia (on the southern half of East Falkland) as well as the remains of a wooden canoe provide strong evidence that they had been visited previously, most likely by the Yaghan people of Tierra del Fuego. It is not known if these are evidence of one-way journeys, but there is no known evidence of pre-Columbian buildings or structures.[citation needed] The islands had no native trees when discovered but there is some ambiguous evidence of past forestation, that may be due to wood being transported by oceanic currents from Patagonia. All modern trees have been introduced by Europeans.
Originally posted by michael1983l
Originally posted by ludwigvonmises003
reply to post by newyorkee
USA has its mistakes and crimes.Let Ron Paul come he will clean up the mess.UK they mass murdered 1.8 billion people in India only.
Are you sure you got your facts right there. You haven't have you. Admit it your just anti British idiot.
It is estimated that 1.8 billion Indians died avoidably from dire deprivation under the British, notable atrocities including 10 million Indians butchered in reprisals for the 1857 uprising (see Amaresh Misra's book “ “War of Civilizations: India AD 1857” –(Volume I -The Road to Delhi; & Volume II- The Long Revolution) ” : warofcivilisations.blogspot.com... ), the Great Bengal Famine of 1769-1779 (that killed 10 million Bengalis, 1/3 of the population), 2 centuries of British-imposed famines that killed scores of millions, most notably in the latter half of the 19th century and culminating in the 1943-1945 Bengali Holocaust, the man-made atrocity in which 6-7 million Indians in Bihar, Bengal, Assam and Orissa were deliberately starved to death by the British in the World War 2 Bengal Famine (see the transcript of the BBC broadcast “Bengal Famine” involving me, Nobel Laureate Professor Amartya Sen and other scholars: www.open2.net... ; see also Gideon Polya's book “Jane Austen and the Black Hole of British History”: globalavoidablemortality.blogspot.com... ).
www.countercurrents.org...
This is more evidence (if more evidence were wanted) of India “moving forward” (to quote the horrible contemporary Newspeak) after suffering 2 centuries of genocidal British rule in which avoidable deaths in India from British-imposed deprivation in the period 1757-1947 totaled 1.8 billion, an Indian Holocaust and an Indian Genocide as defined by Article 2 of the UN Genocide Convention. Using census and other estimates of Indian population in these periods, post-invasion excess deaths totaled 0.6 billion, 1757-1837; 0.5 billion, 1837-1901 under Queen Victoria; and 0.4 billion in 1901-1947; this being 1.5 billion in total and 1.8 billion victims if the carnage in the various royalty-ruled Indian British Protectorate States are included.
mwcnews.net...
Madhusree Mukerjee systematically successively analyzes the background to the Bengali Holocaust in a prologue that deals with British India and the massive recurrent man-made famines, commencing with the 1769-1770 Bengal Famine in which 10 million people died due to British greed. Not quoted is Amaresh Misra’s book “War of Civilizations: India AD 1857” that estimates that 10 million people died in British reprisals for the 1857 Indian rebellion. While the appalling famine history of British India is outlined the genocidal aspect is downplayed. Thus it can be estimated from British census and comparative mortality data that 1.8 billion Indians died prematurely less than 2 centuries of British rule. While Mukerjee makes clear the British economic exploitation of India, she downplays the reality that endemic poverty and hunger in India made it possible for a distant island of scores of millions to rule hundreds of millions of disempowered Indian subjects with the help of well-fed sepoys and other collaborators...
mwcnews.net...
Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by thoughtsfull
Very good point but it basically is just a question of self determination. We all seem to agree that the people of a nation / land should decide what is best for themselves. Therefore we should respect the wishes of the islanders.
I can't see how any sane individual would argue with that to be honest.
You are also right though that it is really just some smoke and mirrors posturing and shouldn't be taken seriously.
Originally posted by newyorkee
reply to post by Twiptwop
arrogant much.....rude to say the least...
its empire......dont try and justify it.....its dumb...
if there wasnt oil....you wouldnt be there....Argentinians would....why....because they are next to it.,....because it makes sense for them to be there,,,,,
