What kind of accent is posh among young people in the US?

Guest   Sat May 03, 2008 8:36 am GMT
No, you can't do that. But you can live with the knowledge that you are the heirs of a genocide. Maybe you can do some good, for a change.
Damian in Edinburgh   Sat May 03, 2008 8:53 am GMT
Sorry, Jasper, that's just not on.....sorry about that! There's no more room here...Europe's full with half the rest of the world, but you can come and visit if you like. :-)

The Falkland Islands seem to be very remote and desolate, the climate is dreich (well, quite like Britain's in fact, but with the seasons all back to front) and all the people who live there appear to be of British descent anyway...if it wasn't for them the only living creatures on that group of islands are sheep and birds and maybe penguins. Are there penguins there? I don't know about that, but I know they have albatrosses using hem as landing stages. The capital "city" - Port Stanley - has fewer people living in it than many a British country village, and probably fewer than on the suburban street where I live here.

If the British left the Falklands what use would the Argentinans have for the Falklands anyway? And before the Brits arrived there, how many Argentinains were living on that scattered group of cold, windswept islands to start with? As usual, the whole affair was one of territorial acquisition just for the hell of it.....and of course to have a go at the nasty British and their imperialist arrogance! :-)
Jasper   Sat May 03, 2008 4:01 pm GMT
Damian, I think perhaps the point was missed.

The Argentinian argument apropos the Falkland Islands is that the islands were stolen from them. I find that this is bad logic; ALL the Americas, from Canada all the way to the Tierra Del Fuego, is stolen----stolen from the Indians.

So if the Falklands have to be returned to Argentina because they've been stolen, then Argentina herself will have to be returned to the Indians, because IT was stolen.
Skippy   Sat May 03, 2008 4:06 pm GMT
If the English left the Falklands then they would likely be independent/part of the commonwealth, they wouldn't join Argentina. They had no links with Argentina until 1971, long after the British had occupied it. About 70% of their population is Scottish or Welsh heritage.
Guest   Sat May 03, 2008 11:18 pm GMT
<<The Argentinian argument apropos the Falkland Islands is that the islands were stolen from them. I find that this is bad logic; ALL the Americas, from Canada all the way to the Tierra Del Fuego, is stolen----stolen from the Indians.

So if the Falklands have to be returned to Argentina because they've been stolen, then Argentina herself will have to be returned to the Indians, because IT was stolen.>>

The argument about the Indians is ridiculous. Argentina is a nation state which is 'presumably' capable of doing something about it. Nation states don't stand by and watch their territory stolen. The Indians have no country of their own and couldn't do anything if they wanted to. Maybe it is unfair but the world is run on 'bad logic'.
Guest   Sat May 03, 2008 11:38 pm GMT
<<The argument about the Indians is ridiculous. Argentina is a nation state which is 'presumably' capable of doing something about it. Nation states don't stand by and watch their territory stolen. The Indians have no country of their own and couldn't do anything if they wanted to. Maybe it is unfair but the world is run on 'bad logic'.>>

+1
Guest   Sat May 03, 2008 11:50 pm GMT
No, it's not 'bad logic'. The Indian argument is the real bad logic. Here's an analogy:

When I was five I punched a kid in the face on the playground and then ran off, leaving him crying in the mud.

Well, now say I'm walking along the street, 30 years later, and some random guy walks up and punches me in the face. I have two choices: punch him back, or walk away and let him get away with it...

According to your logic I should walk away, because if I hit him then I'd be obliged to go search out that kid from 30 years ago so that he could punch me in the face.
Jasper   Sun May 04, 2008 5:57 am GMT
⎩According to your logic I should walk away, because if I hit him then I'd be obliged to go search out that kid from 30 years ago so that he could punch me in the face⎭

The reason your analogy doesn't hold water is because the time frames aren't right.

In your analogy, you've just been hit in the face--two or three minutes ago. In the case of the Falkland Islands, they've been British for almost 200 years. That's almost as long as the time that the United States has been a sovereign nation.

Argentinians must have invented--all by themselves--the tradition of crying over spilt milk; 200 years is a long time to cry over spilt milk, children.
Guest   Sun May 04, 2008 11:48 am GMT
<<Argentinians must have invented--all by themselves--the tradition of crying over spilt milk; 200 years is a long time to cry over spilt milk, children. >>

That is a lie. Malvinas belong to UK since 1833 . Prior to that Malvinas were administred by Argentina. To steal territory to other sovereign nations is a typical British tradition as you can see. UK is the land of piracy and robbery.
Jasper   Sun May 04, 2008 4:46 pm GMT
175 years is still a long time, Guest; longer than anybody has been alive; longer that many other nations who've been subjugated by a conqueror. (I could give a lot of examples.)

Why would Argentina want those cold, rocky islands, with no resources and a British populace, anyway? (The Falklands natives are overwhelmingly pro-British). No indigenous peoples were slaughtered at the time of the conquest--weren't the islands unpopulated?

The whole issue is a mystery to me.
Guest   Sun May 04, 2008 5:23 pm GMT
<<Why would Argentina want those cold, rocky islands, with no resources and a British populace, anyway?
>>

Is oil a good reason for you? Being an American you should be able to understand why a country ca be interested in petrol-rich areas.
There are around 2000 British citizens living in Malvinas only, they could be wiped out very easily. If UK did so with the Argentinia
population in 1833, Argentina has the right to do the same. It's just a question of brute force since UK does not respect the sovereignty of other countries, specially if they don't speak English.
Jasper   Sun May 04, 2008 6:47 pm GMT
The Falkland Islands has oil reserves? I haven't heard this before; do tell.
Jasper   Sun May 04, 2008 6:49 pm GMT
Good God! The Falkland Islands DOES have oil--I hadn't heard this.

Now, it all makes sense...it all makes sense. It had nothing to do with national pride or patriotism at all--just pure commerce....
Guest   Sun May 04, 2008 6:51 pm GMT
It's both things.
Gabriel   Sun May 04, 2008 8:57 pm GMT
In response to Damian, there are penguins in the islands, but their numbers are dwindling due to unchecked mismanagement of the island's resources. And I find it difficult to understand why Jasper finds it difficult to understand. It's not about the intrinsic value of the territory, its history, its geographic proximity or its natural resources (oil was only discovered relatively recently). It is entirely an issue of pride and patriotism, stirred by politicians when it suits their interests from time to time. By the way, under British rule, the islands seem to have become a prime example of corruption. A handful of individuals who own stock in fishing companies pass the very laws that regulate those companies.