Lately, I've been reading various articles on Argentina and their government's recent attempts to claim the Falkland Islands once again. Being an American who a) was born after the last Falklands showdown and b) isn't a Brit, I'm interested in what the British gents on this forum think about Argentina and the Falkland Islands. Do you think the British government will show Argentina who's boss this time around? Or is Argentina going to get their way?
Name one civilized nation that didn't take what it wanted by force (ok, technically the US bought some of their territory but I'm sure the seller knew they'd just take it otherwise).
I can't. However, I never asserted that there were civilized nations that don't use force to impose their will. Indeed, demanding anyone to identify someone who takes without force is impossible, as the mere action of 'taking' requires force.
I did say that there are civilized nations that engage in discourse and make agreements. And since the dawn of time nations and peoples have made agreements in regards to what they want in another's jurisdiction...they are called Trade Agreements and Alliances.
Additionally there are a few civilized Nations (very few I might add) that have actually GIVEN land back after achieving it through force of arms.
Again, if a nation, a set of people, or an individual wants something badly enough, and another nation, set of people, or individual want it badly enough to stand in their way there will be conflict. It is the way of history, like it or not.
If you are referring to the Louisiana Purchase (among other purchases by the US) as something the seller knew would have been taken otherwise, you may want to review history. America was young and weak in the world, France would have had no worries about defeating us if it came to war over the Louisiana Territory. However, they saw a MUTUALLY beneficial agreement (which civilized nations often partake in). France was massively in debt, America needed land to grow.
A country in debt is not one in a position to hire an army to defend a territory.
Won't let me add another reply level.
So here it is:
Based on your response to the last 10% of my reply, its safe to assume you concede the points of my argument.
And yes, debtor nations can still field massive armies. I need not make a list of every Western power.
My point is that I don't just consider a big army attacking to be the only type of "force". Sailing a modern naval ship threateningly into a foreign harbour (as was perhaps more common a century or so ago) is force. The US threatening to dump UK bonds (and therefore bankrupt them) during the Suez Canal Crisis, forcing the UK to give up the canal is a type of force (as was the UK's and France's attempt to take back the canal by force).
I agree. Also, the locals want to remain within a part of the UK territories. I just wonder if the day will come when the UK can't get enough voters to support defending it. And if the Argentineans take it, well as they say, possession is 9/10th of the law. As someone pointed out on the next page thought, I guess we can put that day off for another few years.
Fuck the locals. They wouldn't have let themselves get invaded in the first place if they felt that way.
Haha, You would have made a good German foreign secretary in the late 30s.
"Mr. Alex, the aggressive attack on the Polish territory is worrying".
"Fuck Poland. They should have fought harder. Like come on, did you guys not see what we did in Spain and Czechoslovakia? Like really, what the hell do you think we were building up this army for? Parades?"
You missed your calling Alex. haha.
Watch this entire video(specifically the protion starting at 2:15) to get the reference and valid point:
I think we are all pretty very versed in how Russians deal with hostage situations.
100% successfull operation.
Incorrect Sir, the legal precedent has been established by the PRC among others.