Falkland Islands' Sovereignty Threatened?

[Lady Scylla]

Don't humour it.

there's two options to deal with him, satire or logical arguments. logical arguments are pretty much pointless against nationalism, satire is amusing

Amusing, sure. Entirely lost on the individual, definitely. Pointless, assuredly.

[Risottia]

Nationalist rhetoric is just a tool. The main point is money, as usual.

I can understand oil, but you'd have to be pretty fucking desperate to waste lives on some fish.

Do I have to remember you about the Cod Wars?

edit: damn, ninja'd.

[The Enclave Government]

Is a fishing industry of a small group of islands really worth a war though? How much fish can they possibly yield for that to off-set the costs of a conflict?

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

i thought the cod wars were people just slapping each other with cods

i'm sad now

[Lady Scylla]

Is a fishing industry of a small group of islands really worth a war though? How much fish can they possibly yield for that to off-set the costs of a conflict?

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

Well slap me silly and call me pretty.

[The Enclave Government]

there's two options to deal with him, satire or logical arguments. logical arguments are pretty much pointless against nationalism, satire is amusing

Amusing, sure. Entirely lost on the individual, definitely. Pointless, assuredly.

That's being sigged.

[Farnhamia]

Because it's an example of Argentina's hypocrisy over the whole thing.

"COLONIALISM IS BAD UNLESS WE'RE THE ONES DOING THE COLONISING!"

For God's sake, nigga, you don't seem to have a basic grasp on what colonialism actually is. Furthermore, you're implying that because Argentina was exploited by a colonial power they have no right to point out other countries' colonialist attitudes. If we go by that logic, then piratically the whole of Africa and a few states in Asia as well should shut up about colonialism because they're post-colonial states and I can't stress how stupid that is. Just stop, man.

But replacing them with Argentine settlers is so much more acceptable.

lol nigga you have serious text interpretation issues.

*** Warned for flaming. ***

[Camelza]

Everyone needs to be liberated from the evil west.

Spoken like a true privileged Western kid

The irony is priceless.

[Lady Scylla]

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

i thought the cod wars were people just slapping each other with cods

i'm sad now

You're thinking of Call of Duty

[Old Stephania]

Why are none of these from the UN website?

Wait. So you actually just casually copied a piece of text that forms part of ''IX. Future status of the Territory A. Position of the administering Power''
You literally copied the British argument. That is not the UN's official stance. I already explained why Britain's stance on self-determination is wrong.

I forgot to explain this, I just saw a post about it come up again. The reason I went looking for this is because you claimed that Non-Self-Governing Territories (NSGTs) were not covered by the international laws that protect the right of self-determination, the article I quoted cites numerous resolutions to the contrary.

[The Enclave Government]

i thought the cod wars were people just slapping each other with cods

i'm sad now

You're thinking of Call of Duty

CoD is people shooting cods at each other

it's a vital difference and part of the cultural heritage of the franchise

[Risottia]

Oh, so any population changes past 1500 are illegitimate?

SWISSBALL GIB BACK TICINO CLAY, MILANBALL IS OF HAVING IT.

[Lady Scylla]

You're thinking of Call of Duty

CoD is people shooting cods at each other

it's a vital difference and part of the cultural heritage of the franchise

Hrm. I believe your right. Clearly the only solution is to change it up a bit and shoot bass at each other. That'll tip the scales.

[The Enclave Government]

Oh, so any population changes past 1500 are illegitimate?

SWISSBALL GIB BACK TICINO CLAY, MILANBALL IS OF HAVING IT.

this needs a polandball now

POLEN GIB GERMONY BACK PRUSSIA CLAY OR UBERMENSCH

[The Enclave Government]

double post

[Infected Mushroom]

A United Nations commission has apparently ruled in favour of expanding Argentina's territorial waters by 35% in the South Atlantic, which encompasses the British-held Falkland Islands and beyond.

The ruling was based upon the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, which permits nations to extend their maritime territories across their continental shelves.

This has understandably led to concerns from the Falkland Island's Government and its people; including the question: “what, if any, decisions have been made, and what implications there may be?" to the British Government, which has yet to give an answer. The Falkland's Government also insisted that: "Our understanding has always been that the UN would not make any determination on applications for continental shelf extension in areas where there are competing claims.", which of course there is in this instance, due to the lack of Argentine recognition of the 2013 Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum, which resulted in an overwhelming 99.8% majority in favour of maintaining the current status quo as a British Overseas Territory; self-governing, but with its defence and foreign affairs managed by the United Kingdom.

Is this legal? Does this put the Falkland Islands' sovereignty at risk? Will Argentina interfere in the budding oil exploration industry of the Islands? How will British civilian and military vessels' access to and from the islands be impacted?

These are the questions, amongst others, that must be considered.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016 ... commission
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/656284 ... -Argentina
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_ ... ndum,_2013
http://news.sky.com/story/1668679/argen ... s-decision
http://buenosairesherald.com/article/21 ... time-space

There is no threat. Falkland belongs to the British, and all of the waters around it. If the UN wants to mess with that, then it will have to defeat the British in the field. The UN has no army, they have no warships; they can't defeat the British in the field.

Furthermore, if Argentina wants to start another war with some vague UN ruling as an excuse, the British can put together a fleet and defeat them once again. Britain prevailed in 1982, they can prevail today. I have full confidence in the British military's capabilities to defend the island from invasion if necessary.

There is no threat.

And as a point of law, the UN's interpretation of specific treaties is irrelevant because to the extent that they do apply to the UK, that's up for the UK's highest courts to decide, not some international court. At the end of the day, the law is enforced by the people on the ground, and the UN has no forces.

[The Enclave Government]

A United Nations commission has apparently ruled in favour of expanding Argentina's territorial waters by 35% in the South Atlantic, which encompasses the British-held Falkland Islands and beyond.

The ruling was based upon the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, which permits nations to extend their maritime territories across their continental shelves.

This has understandably led to concerns from the Falkland Island's Government and its people; including the question: “what, if any, decisions have been made, and what implications there may be?" to the British Government, which has yet to give an answer. The Falkland's Government also insisted that: "Our understanding has always been that the UN would not make any determination on applications for continental shelf extension in areas where there are competing claims.", which of course there is in this instance, due to the lack of Argentine recognition of the 2013 Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum, which resulted in an overwhelming 99.8% majority in favour of maintaining the current status quo as a British Overseas Territory; self-governing, but with its defence and foreign affairs managed by the United Kingdom.

Is this legal? Does this put the Falkland Islands' sovereignty at risk? Will Argentina interfere in the budding oil exploration industry of the Islands? How will British civilian and military vessels' access to and from the islands be impacted?

These are the questions, amongst others, that must be considered.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016 ... commission
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/656284 ... -Argentina
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_ ... ndum,_2013
http://news.sky.com/story/1668679/argen ... s-decision
http://buenosairesherald.com/article/21 ... time-space

There is no threat. Falkland belongs to the British, and all of the waters around it. If the UN wants to mess with that, then it will have to defeat the British in the field. The UN has no army, they have no warships; they can't defeat the British in the field.

Furthermore, if Argentina wants to start another war with some vague UN ruling as an excuse, the British can put together a fleet and defeat them once again. The prevailed in 1982, they can prevail today. I have full confidence in the British military's capabilities to defend the island from invasion if necessary.

There is no threat.

UN can't back the Argentinians without a Security Council resolution which the UK can veto anyway

[Lady Scylla]

Amusing, sure. Entirely lost on the individual, definitely. Pointless, assuredly.

That's being sigged.

That's a first. Woo!

[The Enclave Government]

CoD is people shooting cods at each other

it's a vital difference and part of the cultural heritage of the franchise

Hrm. I believe your right. Clearly the only solution is to change it up a bit and shoot bass at each other. That'll tip the scales.

nein

we must simply use Battlebass as an alternative

instead of shooting bass at each other, you drive & fly bass that shoot bass missiles. you also lob bass at your enemies since unlike cods, bass are very fat and are not pinpoint accurate and must account for their fatness

[Mefpan]

There is no threat. Falkland belongs to the British, and all of the waters around it. If the UN wants to mess with that, then it will have to defeat the British in the field. The UN has no army, they have no warships; they can't defeat the British in the field.

Furthermore, if Argentina wants to start another war with some vague UN ruling as an excuse, the British can put together a fleet and defeat them once again. Britain prevailed in 1982, they can prevail today. I have full confidence in the British military's capabilities to defend the island from invasion if necessary.

There is no threat.

Well, if Britain's not careful, Argentina might have enough of its warships rust away and sink without outside help that eventually a metallic land bridge from Argentina to the Falklands forms and that's probably the point where things get a little hairy for Britain.

[Viking Confederacy]

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

i thought the cod wars were people just slapping each other with cods

i'm sad now

Long live the fish slapping dance!

[Infected Mushroom]

There is no threat. Falkland belongs to the British, and all of the waters around it. If the UN wants to mess with that, then it will have to defeat the British in the field. The UN has no army, they have no warships; they can't defeat the British in the field.

Furthermore, if Argentina wants to start another war with some vague UN ruling as an excuse, the British can put together a fleet and defeat them once again. The prevailed in 1982, they can prevail today. I have full confidence in the British military's capabilities to defend the island from invasion if necessary.

There is no threat.

UN can't back the Argentinians without a Security Council resolution which the UK can veto anyway

Exactly. The British claims to the island and the waters is completely secure.

[Infected Mushroom]

There is no threat. Falkland belongs to the British, and all of the waters around it. If the UN wants to mess with that, then it will have to defeat the British in the field. The UN has no army, they have no warships; they can't defeat the British in the field.

Furthermore, if Argentina wants to start another war with some vague UN ruling as an excuse, the British can put together a fleet and defeat them once again. Britain prevailed in 1982, they can prevail today. I have full confidence in the British military's capabilities to defend the island from invasion if necessary.

There is no threat.

Well, if Britain's not careful, Argentina might have enough of its warships rust away and sink without outside help that eventually a metallic land bridge from Argentina to the Falklands forms and that's probably the point where things get a little hairy for Britain.

Britain is within its rights (and it certainly has the technological capability) to prevent people from using the bridge and to destroy it (the bits and pieces that intrude into the zone of control)

[Viking Confederacy]

Nationalist rhetoric is just a tool. The main point is money, as usual.

I can understand oil, but you'd have to be pretty fucking desperate to waste lives on some fish.

I don't know, there are some pretty cool fish in the south Atlantic...

[Farnhamia]

I can understand oil, but you'd have to be pretty fucking desperate to waste lives on some fish.

I don't know, there are some pretty cool fish in the south Atlantic...

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

[The Enclave Government]

I don't know, there are some pretty cool fish in the south Atlantic...

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

You got ninja'd by Internationalizt, we're already memeing it.