91–100 of 125 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you genuinely comparing the referendums in Gibraltar to the current situation in Ukraine?
In both cases the settlers from an imperialist power vote their allegiance to said imperialist power.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It belongs to the people who live there. While you may think places like Point Roberts should be forcibly moved to Canada, or Ceuta should be forcibly moved to Morocco, I'm of the opinion of self determination, as is the global view based on the United Nations, who recognizes self-determination as the right of all peoples to freely determine their political status and pursue their economic, social, and cultural devel…
So if we conquer a place and change the people there, it's the new people who decides? or how we proceed?
After 500 years? Yes
Somewhere between is reasonable to debate, but many people won't even agree on the principal of self determination, at least not consistently. Personally I wouldn't put the threshold longer than a human lifetime
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does Britain have any say in the people who live in, say, Liverpool? Because that's historically been British territory. So what's the difference? Only real difference I can see is length of history (a few hundred years vs. nearly a thousand years). But as far as I'm concerned, a few hundred years vs. nearly a thousand years doesn't make much difference. I'd argue that any territory that has belonged to country X…
So you’re suggesting amnesia and ignoring the fact that Gibraltar wasn’t a blank spot on the map before it was annexed by the British. I think that’s a very one-sided view.
My opinion is that what your distant ancestors did should not be held against you — go far enough back and pretty much everyone has some ancestors who were good people, and some who did flat-out evil things — and that what happened 200 years ago is not a good argument for overturning the status quo. Some exceptions could apply, but "my ancestors took this land by force X number of years ago" is true of just about everyone, everywhere. The only sane thing to do is to hold the past lightly and consider what is the right thing for the current inhabitants today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Good Friday deal doesn't entitle everyone born in NI to Irish Citizenship. (anymore). It's a little more complicated than that for people born in the last 20 years. > Since 1 January 2005, if you are born in Northern Ireland, you can claim Irish citizenship if your parent (or parents) are either British or Irish citizens, or one of them has lived on the island of Ireland for at least 3 out of the 4 years immediat…
Of course there aren't passport checks on planes or boats between Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland, but that only applies to Irish and British citizens. On planes/boats between Northern Ireland and Great Britain there aren't passport checks, but they can and do check your passport.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In both cases the settlers from an imperialist power vote their allegiance to said imperialist power.
Man, you truly are done drinking that kool-aid, you finished the whole jug by the look of it. I'd recommend you to come back to this thread every couple of years and re-read your slop, maybe you'll learn one or two things about yourself while at it.
All you can respond with is outrage because your position is not internally consistent. You can see its morally reprehensible when the Ruzzians do it but when it comes to your country oh no then it's fine because you just need your emotional support colonies.
Like no shit one of your countrymen above said you couldn't give back Gibraltar because it'd set a bad precedent for Malvinas.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> to enforce a culture on those people despite existing treaties, laws, culture and democracy? Britain has been doing this to Ireland for the last 800 years. You still continue to hold their land, oppress its people and do your best to exterminate what shred is left of their language. If Chinggis himself rose from the grave, I'd care a lot more about his thoughts on these matters than a Brit's.
Maybe tone down the hatred?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you’re suggesting amnesia and ignoring the fact that Gibraltar wasn’t a blank spot on the map before it was annexed by the British. I think that’s a very one-sided view.
Pretty much nowhere was a blank spot on the map before the current inhabitants took it over from the previous ones. Nor was it a blank spot when the previous inhabitants took it over from the ones who came before them . Many places in the world have changed hands dozens of times over the years, belonging first to the Babylonian Empire, then to the Medes and the Persians, then to the Romans, then... and so on, and so…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Man, you truly are done drinking that kool-aid, you finished the whole jug by the look of it. I'd recommend you to come back to this thread every couple of years and re-read your slop, maybe you'll learn one or two things about yourself while at it.
Feel free to explain the difference. All you can respond with is outrage because your position is not internally consistent. You can see its morally reprehensible when the Ruzzians do it but when it comes to your country oh no then it's fine because you just need your emotional support colonies. Like no shit one of your countrymen above said you couldn't give back Gibraltar because it'd set a bad precedent for Malvin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Fisheries and oil, have changed the view No. The reason was not economic, the reason was that the government polled the people living there and found that support for remaining British is ~100%. Oil was found later, the fisheries were never worth maintaining the island for.
> No. The reason was not economic, the reason was that the government polled the people living there and found that support for remaining British is ~100%. The Russians in Donetsk and Luhansk also voted to be part of Russia and not Ukraine, crazy stuff.
The vote in the Falklands was a secret ballot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty much nowhere was a blank spot on the map before the current inhabitants took it over from the previous ones. Nor was it a blank spot when the previous inhabitants took it over from the ones who came before them . Many places in the world have changed hands dozens of times over the years, belonging first to the Babylonian Empire, then to the Medes and the Persians, then to the Romans, then... and so on, and so…
This is all true. Yet, all I’m hearing is "Water under the bridge! Annexion is just a thing humans do, get over it." and I think that’s too easy to say when you aren’t, for example, of African heritage. I simply believe that there are some historical events that are more inhumane (for the lack of a better word) than others. Where would you draw the line of acceptance if your country were to invaded, traded, or otherw…
But Africa is such a huge continent, with such a variety of countries (each with their own complicated history) that pretty much any generality you can make about Africa is going to be wrong about large portions of the continent, and about large portions of the history of its various countries. It's perhaps not such a good example to talk about an entire complex continent for a simple point, so I should stop rambling on about it. (But I do recommend finding a book about the empire of Aksum sometime. It's fascinating).