Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 9      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   Next   »
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 393
Reply with quote  #16 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
Both preceding posts are absolute rubbish. How is it 'civilised behaviour' to hand an unwilling and long-established population over to another country? Leaving aside the fact that the last thing Putin, who acts like a murderous gangster in international relations, should be called is civilised. He is as civilised as his buddy President Trump is veracious. Or indeed as David's post is. Franco's victory saved no one including Spain from Communism, it only doomed Spain to decades of murderous oppression. And the objection of the generals and their oligarchical and clerical supporters to the elected government of the Spanish Republic to which they were sworn was that they feared it would reduce their own privileges and power. Which was long overdue, as they had uniformly misused their power in appalling exploitation and mistreatment of common people.

Putin doesn't act like a murderous gangster in international relations. He is defending Syria against PYD and Jihadism, and Crimea ought to be part of Russia. Russia has a far stronger historical claim to Crimea than Ukraine has, and the Crimeans are entitled to national self-determination unlike the Gibraltarians, because Russia didn't expel the native population of Crimea, when Crimea became part of Russia in 1783. The Crimean Tatars, the native people of Crimea, became a minority in Crimea due to Russian immigration to Crimea during the 19th century. Stalin deported the Crimean Tatars in 1944, but the Crimean Tatars were allowed to return to Crimea in 1991, and Putin has made Crimean Tatar an official language of Russia.
In addition, Putin supports Kurdish independence from Iraq unlike USA and Great Britain. Great Britain must immediately change its stance on Kurdistan in order to atone for its crimes against Kurdistan.
Sergey Skripal is a traitor to his homeland, and Great Britain ought to extradite him to Russia.
Putin supports the Russian Orthodox Church, cherishes the Tsarist legacy and allows the Romanovs to return to Russia. To me, Putin and Franco are heroes.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,273
Reply with quote  #17 
When I said Franco was a monster, I simply meant that he committed mass murder. There are moral hard cases, but I don't think that is even justified. On the Civil War and communism, I'm far from an expert. I would take a middling position, as above. I don't think that the Republic was communist or anarchist at the time war broke out. But, on the other hand, there were ominous signs, including atrocities, radical left penetration of certain areas of government and civil society, and the very speed with which these forces moved once war broke out. It is a complex period, and there is no simple or obvious answer to what would have happened had the coup not been launched.
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 393
Reply with quote  #18 
I'm not an Anglophobe. I support the British claim to the Falkland Islands, because the Falkland Islands have never been undisputed Argentine territory, and the Falkland Islands have never had an aboriginal population. I admire Great Britain for allowing Scotland and Northern Ireland to secede, if the majority of their populations vote in favour of it in a referendum. I like the British monarchy because of its great traditions and pageantry, and I admire Queen Elizabeth for fulfilling her duties impeccably. But Great Britain is wrong on Kurdistan and Gibraltar, and the opposition of the British government to the reunification of Crimea with Russia is hypocritical, because the Crimeans have a far stronger claim to national self-determination than the Gibraltarians have.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,273
Reply with quote  #19 
But you're arguments on Gibraltar don't make sense, unless you assume rather far-fetched and problematic views about who has a right to what and how old wrongs should be settled. The Kiril Islands aren't much like Gibraltar, not least because of the difference in time lapsed. The Kirils are intermediate in my mind, being annxed more than seventy years ago, but within living memory, but I would say that I think they should probably stay with Russia if that is what their population wants (I'm not sure if there is much of a civilian population on the Kirils).
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 393
Reply with quote  #20 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
But you're arguments on Gibraltar don't make sense, unless you assume rather far-fetched and problematic views about who has a right to what and how old wrongs should be settled. The Kiril Islands aren't much like Gibraltar, not least because of the difference in time lapsed. The Kirils are intermediate in my mind, being annxed more than seventy years ago, but within living memory, but I would say that I think they should probably stay with Russia if that is what their population wants (I'm not sure if there is much of a civilian population on the Kirils).

I agree, that trying to settle old wrongs makes no sense, if no nation cares about it today. But Spain still claims Gibraltar. According to the UN, the right to national self-determination doesn't apply, when the native population has been expelled. According to Spain, the right to national self-determination doesn't apply to the current Gibraltarians, because Great Britain expelled the native Spanish Gibraltarians in 1704. The Falkland Islands is a different matter, because they have never had an aboriginal population. 
Habomai is uninhabited, while 2100 people live on Shikotan. Iturup and Kunashir, which Russia wants to keep, each have a population of 7000 people.
The Gibraltarians ought to be allowed to remain British citizens, if Gibraltar is handed over to Spain, and the Russians living on Shikotan ought to be allowed to remain Russian citizens, if Shikotan is handed over to Japan.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,273
Reply with quote  #21 
I don't see why the fact a childish nation like Spain wants to dig up the past changes anything. It just means they too hold a far-fetched and problematic position.

The population expulsion you mention happened centuries ago. It is absurd, and of course a very bad precedent, to appeal to it now. Britain will keep Gibraltar as long as its people wish it to. Spain can ask General Galteri how alternative arrangements are likely to work out.
Ethiomonarchist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 5,272
Reply with quote  #22 
I've been to Gibraltar a couple of times.  I can tell you that the place is completely and utterly British.  While I love Spain and the Spanish Bourbon monarchy, I have to say I'm with the Brits on this one.  

Image result for Gibraltar coat of arms

__________________
The Lion of Judah hath prevailed.

Ethiopia stretches her hands unto God (Quote from Psalm 68 which served as the Imperial Motto of the Ethiopian Empire)

"God and history shall remember your judgment." (Quote from Emperor Haile Selassie I's speech to the League of Nations to plead for assistance against the Italian Invasion, 1936.)
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 393
Reply with quote  #23 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ethiomonarchist
I've been to Gibraltar a couple of times.  I can tell you that the place is completely and utterly British.  While I love Spain and the Spanish Bourbon monarchy, I have to say I'm with the Brits on this one.  

Image result for Gibraltar coat of arms
That's surprising. I know, that the vast majority of the current inhabitants of Gibraltar prefer Gibraltar remaining under British rule, but I don't expect Gibraltar to be culturally British, because the population of Gibraltar is multi-ethnic, and a large part of the inhabitants of Gibraltar are descendants of Spanish immigrants. In addition, the native language of the inhabitants of Gibraltar is a Spanish dialect called Llanito. 
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,036
Reply with quote  #24 
It occurred to me that Azadi's facts are as often wrong as his opinions, and that while I had a generalised knowledge of the Kurile Islands dispute I lacked specifics, such as his assertion of Russia's settlement offer. It turns out that this offer was originally made by the Soviet Union in 1956. The 63rd anniversary of the formal offer will happen next month, with still no sign of any implementation. It has from time to time, including recently, been taken out and dusted off, but the stumbling block appears to be what it always has been; the Soviet Union and then Russia's insistence that Japan must recognise Russia's sovereignty over the disputed islands first, and only then ask for them back. Japan, not unreasonably, has declined to do this as it would be entirely too trusting of two extremely untrustworthy entities (not, of course, putting it in quite those terms).

And so the dispute remains, and probably still will when the 126th anniversary of this allegedly 'civilised' offer arrives.
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 393
Reply with quote  #25 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
It occurred to me that Azadi's facts are as often wrong as his opinions, and that while I had a generalised knowledge of the Kurile Islands dispute I lacked specifics, such as his assertion of Russia's settlement offer. It turns out that this offer was originally made by the Soviet Union in 1956. The 63rd anniversary of the formal offer will happen next month, with still no sign of any implementation. It has from time to time, including recently, been taken out and dusted off, but the stumbling block appears to be what it always has been; the Soviet Union and then Russia's insistence that Japan must recognise Russia's sovereignty over the disputed islands first, and only then ask for them back. Japan, not unreasonably, has declined to do this as it would be entirely too trusting of two extremely untrustworthy entities (not, of course, putting it in quite those terms).

And so the dispute remains, and probably still will when the 126th anniversary of this allegedly 'civilised' offer arrives.

It's true, that the USSR offered to return Shikotan and Habomai to Japan in 1956, and Japan rejected the offer due to US threats of not returning Okinawa to Japan, if Japan accepted Russia's offer. Russia remains willing to return Shikotan and Habomai to Japan on the condition, that the US military will be denied access to them. Japan ought to accept the Russian offer, because Japan will never be able to regain them otherwise. Russia is a great power unlike Japan, and Japan will inevitably loose a war with Russia. 
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,036
Reply with quote  #26 
No such condition has ever been asserted so far as I can see. If it had been, I expect Japan would have accepted it, as it would not be unreasonable. Japan did actually win a war with Russia, but that was a long time ago and it would not expect to now, I agree. But no open conflict is likely in any case.
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 393
Reply with quote  #27 
I admit, that the Southern Kuril Islands are different from Gibraltar, because Japan has never concluded a peace treaty with Russia after WW2, while Spain ceded Gibraltar to Great Britain in 1713. But I don't support inviolability of borders, because it doesn't favour Kurdistan. I support the right to national self-determination, but it doesn't apply to Gibraltar, because Great Britain expelled the native population of Gibraltar in 1704. The UN considers Gibraltar a colony. According to the UN, the native populations of colonies are entitled to national self-determination, while transplanted populations of colonies aren't entitled to national self-determination. That means, that Great Britain must hand over Gibraltar to Spain. The current inhabitants of Gibraltar must however be allowed to remain British citizens. The Falkland Islanders, despite being a transplanted population of a colony, are entitled to self-determination, because the Falkland Islands never had an aboriginal population.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,273
Reply with quote  #28 
Why should we give a damn what the UN thinks? I'm not one of those who wishes to do away with entirely, but I hardly take to be a decisive moral authority. It has managed to condemn Israel in the general assembly more times than all other nations combined. The UN's central documents are also vague and conflicting on issues like this. For example, the UN also affirms territorial integrity, and Gibraltar was British territory at the founding of the UN. Territorial integrity has famously usually won out over self-determination at the UN. But by both standards, Gibraltar is British. It is considered a colony do doubt due to the manoeuvring of Spain, plus anti-British pointscoring, much like silliness that leads to the the incessant attacks on Israel.

Anyway, the UN's opinion here is ridiculous because the expulsion happened centuries ago, which, incidentally, is an even greater difference between the Kiril island situation than the one you mention.

What is the UN's view on the return of Granada to the Moors? Or the return of England to the Welsh? Personally, I'm just about ready for the Kingdom of Dumnonia to take its rightful place at the table of nations again.
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 393
Reply with quote  #29 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
Why should we give a damn what the UN thinks? I'm not one of those who wishes to do away with entirely, but I hardly take to be a decisive moral authority. It has managed to condemn Israel in the general assembly more times than all other nations combined. The UN's central documents are also vague and conflicting on issues like this. For example, the UN also affirms territorial integrity, and Gibraltar was British territory at the founding of the UN. Territorial integrity has famously usually won out over self-determination at the UN. But by both standards, Gibraltar is British. It is considered a colony do doubt due to the manoeuvring of Spain, plus anti-British pointscoring, much like silliness that leads to the the incessant attacks on Israel.

Anyway, the UN's opinion here is ridiculous because the expulsion happened centuries ago, which, incidentally, is an even greater difference between the Kiril island situation than the one you mention.

What is the UN's view on the return of Granada to the Moors? Or the return of England to the Welsh? Personally, I'm just about ready for the Kingdom of Dumnonia to take its rightful place at the table of nations again.

As a general rule, I support disputed territories belonging to the country with the strongest historical claim to it, unless the population of the disputed territory decide otherwise in a referendum. But when the colonial power has expelled the native population of the disputed territory, the transplanted current population of the disputed territory aren't entitled to self-determination. In such cases, only historical claims ought to be considered. Gibraltar thus ought to be part of Spain, just as the South Kuril Islands ought to be part of Japan, Crimea ought to be part of Russia and Kurdistan ought to be independent.
But I don't want Spain to go to war with Great Britain over Gibraltar, because the fate of the Spanish monarchy is far more important to me than the fate of Gibraltar. Spain loosing a war over Gibraltar to Great Britain might lead to the Spanish monarchy being abolished, because of the strong republican current in Spain and because King Felipe has been very outspoken on Gibraltar.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,273
Reply with quote  #30 
And as I said, your way of determining who has the best historical claim to Gibraltar is just silly. There's no limiting principle in your position. You seem blind to the fact most nations and parts thereof have changed hands at least several times in recorded history, often with changes of dominant culture, movement of peoples, or even ethnic cleansing. As a general principle, your idea of who has best historical claims would cause chaos in the international system, and many more injustices and issues than it solves. Are you suggesting, for example, that most American's and Australian's return to the Old World?

Now, what about Dumnonia? Surely the evil Anglo--Saxons ethnically cleansed them from their lands, and the dragon banner should fly again over Dorset and Devon? That's clearly the best way to settle the historical claims to the Westcountry. Who cares that it is has been fourteen hundred years or more since that great injustice occurred and it would strike anyone living there today as total bollocks- it must be set right!
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.