The other side of the coin of self determination is having the force to ensure that. Britain holds the ground
Russian holds the ground in parts of Ukraine, does that mean Russia should keep said land?
Does the Israeli settlements in the occupied lands make the land Israeli land?
Ownership is not going to be decided by us here, but to say that one country can just put their people there so the land is theirs now doesn’t make it legally so.
These are completely different situations, like how can you be so willfully ignorant. Falklands aren’t actively being invaded or in a war. Do you really wanna win this Internet argument so bad, that you gotta make some dumb shit up?
These are completely different situations, like how can you be so willfully ignorant. Falklands aren’t actively being invaded or in a war.
I never said they were invaders/invaded, just that the land was being occupied/owned by one nation where another nation lays claim to that land, and if occupation alone is legal/ethically enough to ensure claim over the land. That’s it.
Sure what I said sounds like that, if you ignore the first half of the comment you are replying to.
Here’s the first and only sentence before the sentence I replied to …
The principle of self determination is in the UN charter that you keep erroneously saying suggests the UK should hand over the islands because of.
That has nothing to do with the questions I asked …
The other side of the coin of self determination is having the force to ensure that. Britain holds the ground
Russian holds the ground in parts of Ukraine, does that mean Russia should keep said land?
Does the Israeli settlements in the occupied lands make the land Israeli land?
I was asking specifically about your statement about “Britain holds the ground”.
My point is just holding the ground is not enough to legally/ethically claim the land, especially if you’ve kicked out the people on said land that used to be there.
So you do struggle with reading english then yeah?
So, I’ve been nothing but polite with you while discussing this. Could you try returning that courtesy.
Or is it the concept of self determination that confuses you?
Self-determination is one point of many, in making the determination, and has nothing to do with the issue of bodies occupying a space that is in contest for ownership, hence my other examples I asked you about.
The other side of the coin of self determination is having the force to ensure that. Britain holds the ground
Russian holds the ground in parts of Ukraine, does that mean Russia should keep said land?
Does the Israeli settlements in the occupied lands make the land Israeli land?
I was asking specifically about your statement about “Britain holds the ground”.
My point is just holding the ground is not enough to legally/ethically claim the land, especially if you’ve kicked out the people on said land that used to be there.
My point is just holding the ground is not enough to legally/ethically claim the land, especially if you’ve kicked out the people on said land that used to be there.
And since this didn’t happen on the Falklands, your point is completely asinine.
Self determination requires two things - the whole determination part, in case of the falklands the referendum held and overseen by international observers; and the means to uphold that self determination against those who would ignore it (in this case, argentina).
Russian holds the ground in parts of Ukraine, does that mean Russia should keep said land?
Does the Israeli settlements in the occupied lands make the land Israeli land?
Ownership is not going to be decided by us here, but to say that one country can just put their people there so the land is theirs now doesn’t make it legally so.
These are completely different situations, like how can you be so willfully ignorant. Falklands aren’t actively being invaded or in a war. Do you really wanna win this Internet argument so bad, that you gotta make some dumb shit up?
I never said they were invaders/invaded, just that the land was being occupied/owned by one nation where another nation lays claim to that land, and if occupation alone is legal/ethically enough to ensure claim over the land. That’s it.
Sure what I said sounds like that, if you ignore the first half of the comment you are replying to.
Here’s the first and only sentence before the sentence I replied to …
That has nothing to do with the questions I asked …
I was asking specifically about your statement about “Britain holds the ground”.
My point is just holding the ground is not enough to legally/ethically claim the land, especially if you’ve kicked out the people on said land that used to be there.
So you do struggle with reading english then yeah? Or is it the concept of self determination that confuses you?
So, I’ve been nothing but polite with you while discussing this. Could you try returning that courtesy.
Or is it the concept of self determination that confuses you?
Self-determination is one point of many, in making the determination, and has nothing to do with the issue of bodies occupying a space that is in contest for ownership, hence my other examples I asked you about.
My point is just holding the ground is not enough to legally/ethically claim the land, especially if you’ve kicked out the people on said land that used to be there.
And since this didn’t happen on the Falklands, your point is completely asinine.
Self determination requires two things - the whole determination part, in case of the falklands the referendum held and overseen by international observers; and the means to uphold that self determination against those who would ignore it (in this case, argentina).