Julian vs. Hillary

[repoman]

South America was inhabited (unlike the Falklands). Nobody is denying that.

But you're saying that white Europeans deserved to rule South America.

with a smattering of Fujimoris

 

[Bomb#20]

But you're saying that white Europeans deserved to rule South America.

Where did he say that? You pulled that out of nowhere. What does that even mean?

Where the hell are you pulling this out of? The issue of contention regards Argentina and the UK's claims to the Falkand Islands. Argentina is the quintessence of white Europeans ruling over South America...

He didn't pull it out of nowhere. He pulled it out of ideological necessity. As Derec pointed out, Spanish-speaking countries rank higher than English speaking countries on the progressive value scale. It follows that anybody who sides with Britain against Argentina does not hold progressive values. Derec is defending the British claim. Therefore Derec is not a progressive. Therefore Derec is evil. If Derec has a good reason for defending the British claim, this would conflict with the progressive narrative that justice flows only from progressives. Therefore Derec does not have a good reason for defending the British claim. But Derec's stated reason for defending the British claim is the democratic self-determination of the inhabitants of the Falklands. That's a good reason. Therefore the progressive narrative cannot permit it to be Derec's real reason. Therefore Derec must have a different reason, an evil reason, for defending the British claim. Therefore, logic, intellectual honesty, and the actual text of Derec's posts notwithstanding, progressive ideology requires Derec to have been saying that white Europeans deserved to rule South America.

 

[untermensche]

It was a defense of a colonial possession. Half way across the planet.

It was not a legitimate defense. England did not legitimately own it.

And of course peaceful means were available and compensation was available.

But some insane woman trying to prove she was tough wanted war.

What is insane is you, of all people, defending an invasion by a military dictator to prop up his military junta amidst political and civil unrest.

An invasion of what?

Land that was by any reasonable judgement theirs?

This could have been settled peacefully and England could have gotten compensation.

But it was led by a very insane woman at the time.

The US had it's own problems at the time with it's insane president and all the bloodshed he was carrying out in Central America.

 

[dismal]

Where did he say that? You pulled that out of nowhere. What does that even mean?

Where the hell are you pulling this out of? The issue of contention regards Argentina and the UK's claims to the Falkand Islands. Argentina is the quintessence of white Europeans ruling over South America...

He didn't pull it out of nowhere. He pulled it out of ideological necessity. As Derec pointed out, Spanish-speaking countries rank higher than English speaking countries on the progressive value scale. It follows that anybody who sides with Britain against Argentina does not hold progressive values. Derec is defending the British claim. Therefore Derec is not a progressive. Therefore Derec is evil. If Derec has a good reason for defending the British claim, this would conflict with the progressive narrative that justice flows only from progressives. Therefore Derec does not have a good reason for defending the British claim. But Derec's stated reason for defending the British claim is the democratic self-determination of the inhabitants of the Falklands. That's a good reason. Therefore the progressive narrative cannot permit it to be Derec's real reason. Therefore Derec must have a different reason, an evil reason, for defending the British claim. Therefore, logic, intellectual honesty, and the actual text of Derec's posts notwithstanding, progressive ideology requires Derec to have been saying that white Europeans deserved to rule South America.

Wait, progressives don't think Argentinan's are white?

Nobody tell Messi

 

[untermensche]

All we are permitted is opinions on these matters. We have no power to influence them.

But my opinion is that Hillary would be more hawkish than Obama but less hawkish than Bush.

She would try to prove she is tough, but not try to prove she is clueless.

 

[Will Wiley]

Wait, so the crimes of another person being worse suddenly absolve Hillary of her crimes and indiscretions?

No. But the author of that article was really stretching things trying to gin up a charge against Hillary Clinton, claiming her decision to store her e-mails on a private server was the same as violating "National Security Act of 1947, the CIA Act of 1949, various laws that govern undercover/clandestine CIA officers and, potentially, the Espionage Act of 1917". I think he's just scaremongering. He's certainly blowing things way out of proportion when he compares Clinton's handling of her e-mails to John Kiriakou handing over classified information on a specific covert operative on a specific covert mission to a reporter.

I'm going to use the outing of Valerie Plame as a benchmark. Let me know when Clinton's alleged failure to properly secure her e-mails nears that level of violation the Espionage Act.

I was responding to this post which was about the U.S. being endangered, not about the Espionage Act.
Hillary Clinton has endangered the lives of C.I.A. agents who are serving their country. She did so deliberately and recklessly.
Apparently the lives of those who works to secure America aren't as important as protecting a self important grandiose corrupt lying politician.

I consider the safety of the lives men and women who serve their country more important than protecting Hillary Clinton from taking responsibility for her deliberate reckless actions.

What is more important, Hillary Clintons ass or the lives of C.I.A. officers?

 

[J842P]

Land that was by any reasonable judgement theirs?

What reasonable judgement, exactly? The land had been inhabited by white Europeans of French, Spanish and British ancestry/allegiance. For the last 150 years, though, the people happened to be British. Why are you supporting a military dictatorship's claim to land that was inhabited by people who are not their citizens?

 

[Bomb#20]

What is insane is you, of all people, defending an invasion by a military dictator to prop up his military junta amidst political and civil unrest.

An invasion of what?

Land that was by any reasonable judgement theirs?

You heard it here first, folks! Property rights rank higher than democracy on the untermensche value scale!

 

[untermensche]

An invasion of what?

Land that was by any reasonable judgement theirs?

You heard it here first, folks! Property rights rank higher than democracy on the untermensche value scale!

How is it different from Hong Kong?

 

[Axulus]

An invasion of what?

Land that was by any reasonable judgement theirs?

You heard it here first, folks! Property rights rank higher than democracy on the untermensche value scale!

Except even the property rights argument doesn't hold. The property would be considered to belong to the Falkland Island residents, having inhabited it for over 150 years. There are no Argentinians that could be considered to hold legit title to the land.

 

[Axulus]

You heard it here first, folks! Property rights rank higher than democracy on the untermensche value scale!

How is it different from Hong Kong?

Hmmm, maybe the fact that Hong Kong was colonized by the British without consent after a war, and that Hong Kong had inhabitants before becoming a British Colony, not to mention that the UK and Qing China signed a 99 year lease on the territory, which the territory going back to China at the end of the lease, and finally that Hong Kong was not inhabited primarily by British decedents.

 

[untermensche]

How is it different from Hong Kong?

Hmmm, maybe the fact that Hong Kong was colonized by the British without consent after a war, and that Hong Kong had inhabitants before becoming a British Colony, not to mention that the UK and Qing China signed a 99 year lease on the territory, which the territory going back to China at the end of the lease, and finally that Hong Kong was not inhabited primarily by British decedents.

The British threw Argentinians off the islands and would not let them return.

So they can claim it is inhabited by mostly British descendants.

Argentine policy maintains that Falkland Islanders do not have a right to self-determination, claiming that in 1833 the UK expelled Argentine authorities (and settlers) from the Falklands with a threat of "greater force" and, afterwards, barred Argentines from resettling the islands. Argentina posits that it acquired the Falklands from Spain when it achieved independence in 1816, and that the UK illegally occupied them in 1833.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands

This is a situation of a colonial power taking possession of something, barring the natural settlement of locals and then maintaining it with force.

It is illegitimate colonial behavior. Might makes right.

 

[blastula]

What drives this massive Hillary Clinton butthurt that seems so pervasive among conservatives, misogynists, and others?

For Republicans, it's that she and Bill win elections against them.

 

[Axulus]

Hmmm, maybe the fact that Hong Kong was colonized by the British without consent after a war, and that Hong Kong had inhabitants before becoming a British Colony, not to mention that the UK and Qing China signed a 99 year lease on the territory, which the territory going back to China at the end of the lease, and finally that Hong Kong was not inhabited primarily by British decedents.

The British threw Argentinians off the islands and would not let them return.

So they can claim it is inhabited by mostly British descendants.

Argentine policy maintains that Falkland Islanders do not have a right to self-determination, claiming that in 1833 the UK expelled Argentine authorities (and settlers) from the Falklands with a threat of "greater force" and, afterwards, barred Argentines from resettling the islands. Argentina posits that it acquired the Falklands from Spain when it achieved independence in 1816, and that the UK illegally occupied them in 1833.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands

This is a situation of a colonial power taking possession of something, barring the natural settlement of locals and then maintaining it with force.

It is illegitimate colonial behavior. Might makes right.

So you are saying that questionable policy from a bunch of dead people over 150 years ago means that the current inhabitants who have been there their whole lives and their parents whole lives and had nothing whatsoever to do with said policy should be kicked out or put under rule of an Argentine dictator upon the threat of death, even thought the residents overwhelmingly want to be self governed and remain a territory of UK?

What political philosophy are you using here, and how is that in any way consistent with your idea of democracy > dictatorship?

 

[Arctish]

No. But the author of that article was really stretching things trying to gin up a charge against Hillary Clinton, claiming her decision to store her e-mails on a private server was the same as violating "National Security Act of 1947, the CIA Act of 1949, various laws that govern undercover/clandestine CIA officers and, potentially, the Espionage Act of 1917". I think he's just scaremongering. He's certainly blowing things way out of proportion when he compares Clinton's handling of her e-mails to John Kiriakou handing over classified information on a specific covert operative on a specific covert mission to a reporter.

I'm going to use the outing of Valerie Plame as a benchmark. Let me know when Clinton's alleged failure to properly secure her e-mails nears that level of violation the Espionage Act.

I was responding to this post which was about the U.S. being endangered, not about the Espionage Act.
Hillary Clinton has endangered the lives of C.I.A. agents who are serving their country. She did so deliberately and recklessly.
Apparently the lives of those who works to secure America aren't as important as protecting a self important grandiose corrupt lying politician.

I consider the safety of the lives men and women who serve their country more important than protecting Hillary Clinton from taking responsibility for her deliberate reckless actions.

What is more important, Hillary Clintons ass or the lives of C.I.A. officers?

The reason this is still under investigation is because the laws governing the safekeeping and retention of that sort of official correspondence aren't completely clear. Officials are supposed to keep such documents secure but does that mean it's actually against the law to keep them on a private server? Apparently is wasn't when Colin Powell kept his on a private server. Other Bush Administration officials did the same thing. In fact, using private servers has been an issue ever since Karl Rove used one to hide his activities and supposedly "lost" some documentation he was supposed to preserve. Now that Hillary has been caught keeping her e-mails on a private server everyone is pretending this is the first they've ever heard of such a thing.

If it was illegal, she should be prosecuted. If it wasn't illegal but was unacceptably risky, the laws governing how such documents are handled should be updated to make it illegal.

Also, I think it's important to keep in mind that

1. Julian Assange got the e-mails he is threatening to publish from Chelsea (Bradley) Manning, not off Clinton's private server, so the security breach there happened on the system everyone is insisting she should have used. I can't see how that would have resulted in her e-mails remaining unpublished.

2. The outing of Plame is a prime example of "deliberate reckless actions" taken for the purpose of "protecting a self important grandiose corrupt lying politician" by endangering "the lives men and women who serve their country". The possible revelation of a CIA operative's name from the disclosure of Clinton's e-mails pales in comparison. Neither Clinton nor any member of her staff revealed anything deliberately. So let's keep things in proportion.

Robert Hanson deliberately revealed secrets for money. Jonathan Pollard did it out of loyalty to another country. Bradley Manning did it out of a sense of outrage. Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby did it for political revenge and to blunt a challenge to their lies re: Iraq. Clinton did not reveal anything deliberately. In fact, she appears to have been attempting to achieve even greater degree of privacy by keeping her e-mails out of the federal system. Comparing her to people like John Kiriakou is absurd.

 

[untermensche]

The British threw Argentinians off the islands and would not let them return.

So they can claim it is inhabited by mostly British descendants.

Argentine policy maintains that Falkland Islanders do not have a right to self-determination, claiming that in 1833 the UK expelled Argentine authorities (and settlers) from the Falklands with a threat of "greater force" and, afterwards, barred Argentines from resettling the islands. Argentina posits that it acquired the Falklands from Spain when it achieved independence in 1816, and that the UK illegally occupied them in 1833.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands

This is a situation of a colonial power taking possession of something, barring the natural settlement of locals and then maintaining it with force.

It is illegitimate colonial behavior. Might makes right.

So you are saying that questionable policy from a bunch of dead people over 150 years ago means that the current inhabitants who have been there their whole lives and their parents whole lives and had nothing whatsoever to do with said policy should be kicked out or put under rule of an Argentine dictator upon the threat of death, even thought the residents overwhelmingly want to be self governed and remain a territory of UK?

What political philosophy are you using here, and how is that in any way consistent with your idea of democracy > dictatorship?

It's the philosophy that nations shouldn't be forced to have foreign powers in their midst because the foreign power's colonial conduct was so criminal it was successful.

 

[Derec]

It's the philosophy that nations shouldn't be forced to have foreign powers in their midst because the foreign power's colonial conduct was so criminal it was successful.

Argentina is a colonial country itself. And if they had managed to occupy the islands, they would have colonized it themselves.

Just because they are in closer proximity to the islands does not mean it belongs to them.

 

[Arctish]

I can't edit my previous post so I'm putting a needed correction here:

Robert Hanssen was the guy who deliberately revealed secrets for money.

 

[Bomb#20]

You heard it here first, folks! Property rights rank higher than democracy on the untermensche value scale!

How is it different from Hong Kong?

I'm not clear on why you think my opinion about the differences between the Falklands and Hong Kong somehow gets you off the hook of having been caught red-handed in hypocrisy. You think a democratic vote should have been ignored and the voters should have been subjected to a dictator.

But to answer your question, how it's different from Hong Kong is painfully (and that's mostly painful to the people of Hong Kong) obvious: if Britain went to war to protect the people of Hong Kong from the PRC, Britain would lose.

 

[Will Wiley]

delete

 

[untermensche]

It's the philosophy that nations shouldn't be forced to have foreign powers in their midst because the foreign power's colonial conduct was so criminal it was successful.

Argentina is a colonial country itself. And if they had managed to occupy the islands, they would have colonized it themselves.

Just because they are in closer proximity to the islands does not mean it belongs to them.

Argentina is a product of colonization. Not a colonizing nation.

And proximity is a crucial point.

The proximity puts some powerful nation from half way across the planet right in your face.

 

[untermensche]

How is it different from Hong Kong?

I'm not clear on why you think my opinion about the differences between the Falklands and Hong Kong somehow gets you off the hook of having been caught red-handed in hypocrisy. You think a democratic vote should have been ignored and the voters should have been subjected to a dictator.

But to answer your question, how it's different from Hong Kong is painfully (and that's mostly painful to the people of Hong Kong) obvious: if Britain went to war to protect the people of Hong Kong from the PRC, Britain would lose.

Using force to drive people off and then keeping them off is not democracy.

Not in Israel, not in the Falklands.

 

[angelo]

I'm not clear on why you think my opinion about the differences between the Falklands and Hong Kong somehow gets you off the hook of having been caught red-handed in hypocrisy. You think a democratic vote should have been ignored and the voters should have been subjected to a dictator.

But to answer your question, how it's different from Hong Kong is painfully (and that's mostly painful to the people of Hong Kong) obvious: if Britain went to war to protect the people of Hong Kong from the PRC, Britain would lose.

Using force to drive people off and then keeping them off is not democracy.

Not in Israel, not in the Falklands.

I'll ignore the reference to Israel as it's just plain old anti-Semetism, but the vast majority of Falkland Islanders wanted to remain British subjects, not become Argentinians!

 

[untermensche]

Using force to drive people off and then keeping them off is not democracy.

Not in Israel, not in the Falklands.

I'll ignore the reference to Israel as it's just plain old anti-Semetism, but the vast majority of Falkland Islanders wanted to remain British subjects, not become Argentinians!

It is not antisemitism to say Israel kicked 700,000 people out and did not let them back to create an artificial Jewish majority.

That is not democracy.

And when England does the same thing in the Falklands it is not democracy either.

 

[dismal]

Argentina is a colonial country itself. And if they had managed to occupy the islands, they would have colonized it themselves.

Just because they are in closer proximity to the islands does not mean it belongs to them.

Argentina is a product of colonization. Not a colonizing nation.

Well by that standard, so is England. Damn Romans. I mean damn Anglo-Saxons. I mean damn Normans.

And proximity is a crucial point.

Right, this is why we are entitled to Cuba.

 

[angelo]

I'll ignore the reference to Israel as it's just plain old anti-Semetism, but the vast majority of Falkland Islanders wanted to remain British subjects, not become Argentinians!

It is not antisemitism to say Israel kicked 700,000 people out and did not let them back to create an artificial Jewish majority.

That is not democracy.

And when England does the same thing in the Falklands it is not democracy either.

What about the close to a million Jews thrown out of various Arab countries having no right of return, or their property.

 

[Jayjay]

It is not antisemitism to say Israel kicked 700,000 people out and did not let them back to create an artificial Jewish majority.

That is not democracy.

And when England does the same thing in the Falklands it is not democracy either.

What about the close to a million Jews thrown out of various Arab countries having no right of return, or their property.

Minorities vs. majority. (Though I doubt anyone is pretending that the Arab countries at the time were democracies.)

 

[untermensche]

It is not antisemitism to say Israel kicked 700,000 people out and did not let them back to create an artificial Jewish majority.

That is not democracy.

And when England does the same thing in the Falklands it is not democracy either.

What about the close to a million Jews thrown out of various Arab countries having no right of return, or their property.

Bad too.

 

[untermensche]

Argentina is a product of colonization. Not a colonizing nation.

Well by that standard, so is England. Damn Romans. I mean damn Anglo-Saxons. I mean damn Normans.

Where are the Falklands in relation to England?

There might be evidence of colonization here.

And proximity is a crucial point.

Right, this is why we are entitled to Cuba.

That's what the US thought prior to Castro and has acted like ever since.

 

[angelo]

Cuba and it's people would have been much better off had it been part of the US!

 

[untermensche]

Cuba and it's people would have been much better off had it been part of the US!

Part of Cuba is part of the US.

A real fine place to visit.

 

[Malintent]

What drives this massive Hillary Clinton butthurt that seems so pervasive among conservatives, misogynists, and others?

The internet. Everyone with an asshole has an opinion, and can have it heard(t) by millions.
Humans have a knack for ignoring the mundane and latching on to the new or surprising.
So therefore, this.

 

[Axulus]

Well by that standard, so is England. Damn Romans. I mean damn Anglo-Saxons. I mean damn Normans.

Where are the Falklands in relation to England?

There might be evidence of colonization here.

And proximity is a crucial point.

Right, this is why we are entitled to Cuba.

That's what the US thought prior to Castro and has acted like ever since.

The whole damn human race colonized the planet.

The strange thing about all of this is that you think something a bunch of dead people did 150 years ago overrides democracy of today's living inhabitants and justifies a military dictator to rule over them. What a bizarre moral system you hold on to.

 

[J842P]

Where are the Falklands in relation to England?

There might be evidence of colonization here.

And proximity is a crucial point.

Right, this is why we are entitled to Cuba.

That's what the US thought prior to Castro and has acted like ever since.

The whole damn human race colonized the planet.

The strange thing about all of this is that you think something a bunch of dead people did 150 years ago overrides democracy of today's living inhabitants and justifies a military dictator to rule over them. What a bizarre moral system you hold on to.

It's absolutely absurd. Red-handed hypocrisy described it best.

 

[J842P]

Argentina is a colonial country itself. And if they had managed to occupy the islands, they would have colonized it themselves.

Just because they are in closer proximity to the islands does not mean it belongs to them.

Argentina is a product of colonization. Not a colonizing nation.

And proximity is a crucial point.

The proximity puts some powerful nation from half way across the planet right in your face.

The Argentines on the Falkands were colonists. Two rival countries were trying to colonize those islands 150 years ago. Argentina lost to the British. Most of the actual inhabitants before the Islands were contested were British sealers, although "inhabitants" might be a strong word. Indeed, the Argentine efforts weren't really Argentine, they let a German national do it, and most of the people in that colony were German citizens. After that venture failed, the Argentines tried to establish a penal colony which again failed, and it was at this point that the British reasserted control. The French, British, Spanish, and later Argentines all tried to colonize the place.

 

[untermensche]

Where are the Falklands in relation to England?

There might be evidence of colonization here.

And proximity is a crucial point.

Right, this is why we are entitled to Cuba.

That's what the US thought prior to Castro and has acted like ever since.

The whole damn human race colonized the planet.

This is a colonial possession half way across the planet.

Not something ubiquitous to the entire human race.

It is a rare entity.

 

[untermensche]

Argentina is a product of colonization. Not a colonizing nation.

And proximity is a crucial point.

The proximity puts some powerful nation from half way across the planet right in your face.

The Argentines on the Falkands were colonists. Two rival countries were trying to colonize those islands 150 years ago. Argentina lost to the British. Most of the actual inhabitants before the Islands were contested were British sealers, although "inhabitants" might be a strong word. Indeed, the Argentine efforts weren't really Argentine, they let a German national do it, and most of the people in that colony were German citizens. After that venture failed, the Argentines tried to establish a penal colony which again failed, and it was at this point that the British reasserted control. The French, British, Spanish, and later Argentines all tried to colonize the place.

It is an island right off their coast.

Settling it is not colonizing it. Going half way across the planet and kicking people around and talking their resources is colonization.

 

[Elixir]

WikiLeaks to publish more Hillary Clinton emails - Julian Assange

Although no matter what evidence emerges I doubt that Loretta Lynch will allow prosecution of heiress apparent, Hilllary of the House Clinton, the first of her name, the breaker of glass ceilings, dodger of sniper bullets, conqueress of Tuzla, slayer of Gaddafi or what other legend-mongering has arisen around the Inevitable One.

Funny. I'll bet that Trump is happy that Julian is helping him!

De Trump don' need no steenkin' help. Just ask him. He's doing Great so far - has the Rep party down to 32% "favorable" in the eyes of Americans. How could anyone with the power to do something like that, ever be defeated? I doubt there's anything he can't destroy. If he gets too pissed off when the Party tries to pull the rug out from under him at the convention, he might destroy the universe in anger.

 

[Elixir]

She is insane.

Of course she is insane (wants to be President) - but is she insaner than the Donald? She's more predictable than Trump I'd say, and people generally love predictable. That makes her look more sane than Trump. OTOH, Trump is showing every sign that he really doesn't really want to be President, he just wants to wreak havoc upon the Republican party. So maybe he is more sane than Hillary.

 

[untermensche]

She is insane.

Of course she is insane (wants to be President) - but is she insaner than the Donald? She's more predictable than Trump I'd say, and people generally love predictable. That makes her look more sane than Trump. OTOH, Trump is showing every sign that he really doesn't really want to be President, he just wants to wreak havoc upon the Republican party. So maybe he is more sane than Hillary.

It is a general insanity that effects people deluded by the religion of "The State".

They think "The State" gives them all kinds of rights and privileges to kill and abuse people not in "The State".

It is the most dangerous and destructive religion in the world.

 

[J842P]

The Argentines on the Falkands were colonists. Two rival countries were trying to colonize those islands 150 years ago. Argentina lost to the British. Most of the actual inhabitants before the Islands were contested were British sealers, although "inhabitants" might be a strong word. Indeed, the Argentine efforts weren't really Argentine, they let a German national do it, and most of the people in that colony were German citizens. After that venture failed, the Argentines tried to establish a penal colony which again failed, and it was at this point that the British reasserted control. The French, British, Spanish, and later Argentines all tried to colonize the place.

It is an island right off their coast.

Settling it is not colonizing it. Going half way across the planet and kicking people around and talking their resources is colonization.

Of course it's colonization. If the US went to the Bahamas and took an island, it would be colonization. There were various colonial powers vying for that island, including Argentina, and indeed, Argentina wasn't even the original claimant. You're making absolutely no sense, and this is a pretty transparent example of you applying faulty reasoning because you dislike Margaret Thatcher. Of course, why you seem to prefer the military dictator Leopoldo Galtieri is beyond rationalization, a man best know for his Guerra Sucia, where over 30,000 leftist activists were disappeared, a horrible example of America supporting state-sponsored terrorism in South America. For fuck's sake, man, wake up.

 

[untermensche]

It is an island right off their coast.

Settling it is not colonizing it. Going half way across the planet and kicking people around and talking their resources is colonization.

Of course it's colonization. If the US went to the Bahamas and took an island, it would be colonization. There were various colonial powers vying for that island, including Argentina, and indeed, Argentina wasn't even the original claimant. You're making absolutely no sense, and this is a pretty transparent example of you applying faulty reasoning because you dislike Margaret Thatcher. Of course, why you seem to prefer the military dictator Leopoldo Galtieri is beyond rationalization, a man best know for his Guerra Sucia, where over 30,000 leftist activists were disappeared, a horrible example of America supporting state-sponsored terrorism in South America. For fuck's sake, man, wake up.

What does this hand waving have to do with anything?

A colonial power used force to disrupt the natural course of settlement of an island.

There is no legitimate claim in that.

 

[Elixir]

Of course she is insane (wants to be President) - but is she insaner than the Donald? She's more predictable than Trump I'd say, and people generally love predictable. That makes her look more sane than Trump. OTOH, Trump is showing every sign that he really doesn't really want to be President, he just wants to wreak havoc upon the Republican party. So maybe he is more sane than Hillary.

It is a general insanity that effects people deluded by the religion of "The State".

They think "The State" gives them all kinds of rights and privileges to kill and abuse people not in "The State".

It is the most dangerous and destructive religion in the world.

Meh. They're all alike - cults, sects, religions, nations... They all exhibit tribalist behavior and tap into the ancient instinct for tribal defense. Problem is, the tribal model actually works pretty well when tribes are a few hundred people, but not so much when it's hundreds of millions. In its current expression, that genetically programmed behavior could possibly be lethal to the species.

 

[Derec]

A colonial power used force to disrupt the natural course of settlement of an island.

How is Spanish colonial settlement on the islands natural but English colonial settlement unnatural?
And reversing 150 years of settlement history by military force would not be "disrupt[ing] the natural course of settlement of an island"?

I am really at a loss to see any logic here, other than applying Spanish speaking ≫ English speaking.

 

[untermensche]

A colonial power used force to disrupt the natural course of settlement of an island.

How is Spanish colonial settlement on the islands natural but English colonial settlement unnatural?
And reversing 150 years of settlement history by military force would not be "disrupt[ing] the natural course of settlement of an island"?

I am really at a loss to see any logic here, other than applying Spanish speaking ≫ English speaking.

The natural settlement is not to be controlled from across the planet.

If Spain still claimed the Island I would say the same thing.

 

[Derec]

The natural settlement is not to be controlled from across the planet.

They are not 'controlled' across the planet in any meaningful sense - they have their own parliament and chief executive, their own constitution. UK provides defense however, which proved rather necessary when Argentina invaded. I mean, do you really expect a couple of thousand settlers with a bloody sheep in their coat of arms to be able to defend themselves against foreign aggression?

If Spain still claimed the Island I would say the same thing.

But Argentina conquering it is fine just due to proximity? The local population obviously likes their current status and wish to maintain it.

 

[untermensche]

They are not 'controlled' across the planet in any meaningful sense - they have their own parliament and chief executive, their own constitution. UK provides defense however, which proved rather necessary when Argentina invaded. I mean, do you really expect a couple of thousand settlers with a bloody sheep in their coat of arms to be able to defend themselves against foreign aggression?

If Spain still claimed the Island I would say the same thing.

But Argentina conquering it is fine just due to proximity? The local population obviously likes their current status and wish to maintain it.

I don't think force should be the answer on either side.

An independent nation would be fine with me.

But ties to England are the result of oppression and violence, because free settlement was forbidden.

It isn't legitimate anymore than the monarchy in Saudi Arabia is legitimate.

 

[Axulus]

They are not 'controlled' across the planet in any meaningful sense - they have their own parliament and chief executive, their own constitution. UK provides defense however, which proved rather necessary when Argentina invaded. I mean, do you really expect a couple of thousand settlers with a bloody sheep in their coat of arms to be able to defend themselves against foreign aggression?

But Argentina conquering it is fine just due to proximity? The local population obviously likes their current status and wish to maintain it.

I don't think force should be the answer on either side.

An independent nation would be fine with me.

But ties to England are the result of oppression and violence, because free settlement was forbidden.

It isn't legitimate anymore than the monarchy in Saudi Arabia is legitimate.

It is legitimate because the people who actually live on the islands (most of them have been there their entire lives) and whose ancestors have been on them for over 150 years and whose very livelihood is at stake want it that way. You know, democracy and all that.

 

[untermensche]

It is legitimate because the people who actually live on the islands and whose very livelihood is at stake want it that way. You know, democracy and all that.

Falkland Islands lie in Argentinian waters, UN commission rules

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/29/falkland-islands-argentina-waters-rules-un-commission

This is a matter for the UN.

It should be put up to a democratic vote in the UN.

 

[Jayjay]

Falkland Islands lie in Argentinian waters, UN commission rules

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/29/falkland-islands-argentina-waters-rules-un-commission

This is a matter for the UN.

It should be put up to a democratic vote in the UN.

Do you mean UN security council, where UK has a veto?

Or do you mean the general assembly, that consist mostly of dictatorships and autocracies rather than democracies?