Today, as the 30th anniversary of the two nations’ war over the South Atlantic's Falklands approaches, tensions have risen, with Britain accusing Argentina of “colonialism†for pursuing its claim.
On Jan. 30, Britain announced it was deploying the destroyer HMS Dauntless to the South Atlantic, replacing a less powerful warship that is there now. Today Prince William, second-in-line to the British throne, began his Royal Air Force posting to the Falklands – arriving, as many Argentineans saw it, in “the uniform of the conqueror," even though he is flying a search-and-rescue helicopter.
The Royal Navy denies either move is significant, saying it has long had a presence in the South Atlantic and the replacement of one warship with another is “routine.â€Â
n June 2011, Argentinean President Cristina Fernandez described Britain as a “crass colonial power in decline†after it refused to hold talks over the islands. Britain has said it will only agree to talks if Falkland residents – who are British citizens and wish to remain British, the government argues – request them.
Yesterday, Britain’s National Security Council discussed the Falkland’s defenses. Today Prime Minister David Cameron told Parliament that Britain was committed to protecting the islands and that it was up to the Falklanders to determine their nationality.
"What the Argentineans have been saying recently, I would argue, is actually far more like colonialism because these people want to remain British and the Argentineans want them to do something else."
Argentina's interior minister, Florencio Randazzo, hit back, describing Mr. Cameron’s words as “totally offensive.†Foreign Minister Hector Timerman described Britain as "a synonym for colonialism."
For the 3,000 Falklanders – who opinion polls suggest, have no strong feeling either way about their nationality – the squabbling has disrupted their lives, bringing higher food prices. The Islands’ economy, driven by raising sheep and fishing the in the rich waters of the area, generates about $170 million a year.
Yeah, why don't they just resolve this shit once and for all with an election among the Falklanders?
Maybe the prince can help try to negotiate a vote.Yeah, why don't they just resolve this shit once and for all with an election among the Falklanders?
Because the president of Argentina doesn't actually want that as she suspects (rightly) that the Islanders will want to stay British. This would make her rhetoric look very hollow and she uses the Falklands to garner popular support.
It's interesting to note that many on the left in South America have a similar viewpoint (not all, there is a growing minority in Argentina who think the Falklands should remain British), namely Evo Morales and Hugo Chavez. It's interesting to note that they say that they rule by the will of the people don't take the will of the Islanders into account when shouting down Britain for Colonialism.
with Britain accusing Argentina of “colonialism†for pursuing its claim.
Quotewith Britain accusing Argentina of “colonialism†for pursuing its claim.
Funny.
The fact is that the Falklands matters not a whit, not to either side. It has no strategic importance to the British. It has no economic importance to the Argentinians. It makes slightly more geographic sense for the island to be Argentinian than British. And if the population (of a few hundred) really wish to be British, they have every right to sell their property at market rates and take a plane ride- the Argentinian air force would probably provide the trip free, even.
The only real importance those damn islands have is electoral.
Quotewith Britain accusing Argentina of “colonialism†for pursuing its claim.
Funny.
The fact is that the Falklands matters not a whit, not to either side. It has no strategic importance to the British. It has no economic importance to the Argentinians. It makes slightly more geographic sense for the island to be Argentinian than British. And if the population (of a few hundred) really wish to be British, they have every right to sell their property at market rates and take a plane ride- the Argentinian air force would probably provide the trip free, even.
The only real importance those damn islands have is electoral.
Quotewith Britain accusing Argentina of “colonialism†for pursuing its claim.
Funny.
The fact is that the Falklands matters not a whit, not to either side. It has no strategic importance to the British. It has no economic importance to the Argentinians. It makes slightly more geographic sense for the island to be Argentinian than British. And if the population (of a few hundred) really wish to be British, they have every right to sell their property at market rates and take a plane ride- the Argentinian air force would probably provide the trip free, even.
The only real importance those damn islands have is electoral.
Quotewith Britain accusing Argentina of “colonialism†for pursuing its claim.
Funny.
The fact is that the Falklands matters not a whit, not to either side. It has no strategic importance to the British. It has no economic importance to the Argentinians. It makes slightly more geographic sense for the island to be Argentinian than British. And if the population (of a few hundred) really wish to be British, they have every right to sell their property at market rates and take a plane ride- the Argentinian air force would probably provide the trip free, even.
The only real importance those damn islands have is electoral.
Eh? You're saying they should leave? Why?
Quotewith Britain accusing Argentina of “colonialism†for pursuing its claim.
Funny.
The fact is that the Falklands matters not a whit, not to either side. It has no strategic importance to the British. It has no economic importance to the Argentinians. It makes slightly more geographic sense for the island to be Argentinian than British. And if the population (of a few hundred) really wish to be British, they have every right to sell their property at market rates and take a plane ride- the Argentinian air force would probably provide the trip free, even.
The only real importance those damn islands have is electoral.
Eh? You're saying they should leave? Why?
Quotewith Britain accusing Argentina of “colonialism†for pursuing its claim.
Funny.
The fact is that the Falklands matters not a whit, not to either side. It has no strategic importance to the British. It has no economic importance to the Argentinians. It makes slightly more geographic sense for the island to be Argentinian than British. And if the population (of a few hundred) really wish to be British, they have every right to sell their property at market rates and take a plane ride- the Argentinian air force would probably provide the trip free, even.
The only real importance those damn islands have is electoral.
Eh? You're saying they should leave? Why?
Because Argentina, apparently, REALLY REALLY wants the Falkland Islands. To stop them getting it cost lives- like, thousands of lives. The benefit of them not getting it was... negligible. The convenience of a few hundred people? Any more than that?
Yes there are only a few hundred people living on the Falklands - so what? If there was only one person and he or she wanted the lands to remain British, then so be it.Quotewith Britain accusing Argentina of “colonialism†for pursuing its claim.
Funny.
The fact is that the Falklands matters not a whit, not to either side. It has no strategic importance to the British. It has no economic importance to the Argentinians. It makes slightly more geographic sense for the island to be Argentinian than British. And if the population (of a few hundred) really wish to be British, they have every right to sell their property at market rates and take a plane ride- the Argentinian air force would probably provide the trip free, even.
The only real importance those damn islands have is electoral.
Eh? You're saying they should leave? Why?
Because Argentina, apparently, REALLY REALLY wants the Falkland Islands. To stop them getting it cost lives- like, thousands of lives. The benefit of them not getting it was... negligible. The convenience of a few hundred people? Any more than that?
The benefit of Argentina not getting the Falklands was not negligible: Losing the war was what toppled the military Junta, an horrific organisation that costs thousands (probably a lot more as no-one knows the final tally) of Argentine lives, mostly young people who had done no wrong. Please tell Las Madres De La Playa de Mayo that the end of the Junta was negligible.
Except...these people don't want to live in a nice apartment in London. they want to live in the Falkland's. So going to war over a tiny spit of land just because you want it is kinda...stupid.
Ironbite-really stupid.
Except...these people don't want to live in a nice apartment in London. they want to live in the Falkland's. So going to war over a tiny spit of land just because you want it is kinda...stupid.
Ironbite-really stupid.
I'm not saying the Argentinians are right, I'm saying Thatcher and any other British Prime Minister who wants to contest Argentina's bullshit claim, is wrong.
Except...these people don't want to live in a nice apartment in London. they want to live in the Falkland's. So going to war over a tiny spit of land just because you want it is kinda...stupid.
Ironbite-really stupid.
I'm not saying the Argentinians are right, I'm saying Thatcher and any other British Prime Minister who wants to contest Argentina's bullshit claim, is wrong.
I know this may seem like a crazy idea to you, but it seems to me that the fault there lies not with the Brits for not putting up with Argentina's bullshit, but Argentina for trying to grab territory that they have no claim to.
Let's say one Brit lived on the island. How many British and Argentinian sailors, soldiers and airmen (airpeople?) would you be willing to sacrifice so that he or she were able to live there instead of in a nice flat in London? Two? Fifty? A million? Where's the limit?
Let's make a cost-benefit analysis. How many lives is the convenience of the Falklanders worth? Personally, I'd say zero.
Except...these people don't want to live in a nice apartment in London. they want to live in the Falkland's. So going to war over a tiny spit of land just because you want it is kinda...stupid.
Ironbite-really stupid.
I'm not saying the Argentinians are right, I'm saying Thatcher and any other British Prime Minister who wants to contest Argentina's bullshit claim, is wrong.
Let's say one Brit lived on the island. How many British and Argentinian sailors, soldiers and airmen (airpeople?) would you be willing to sacrifice so that he or she were able to live there instead of in a nice flat in London? Two? Fifty? A million? Where's the limit?
Let's make a cost-benefit analysis. How many lives is the convenience of the Falklanders worth? Personally, I'd say zero.
But these people don't want to live in London, they want to live where they've lived all their lives: To ensure their safety, what would you do?
To put this another way, if the another country invaded Australia, wouldn't you want someone to stop them, or are you saying that it's not worth it?
Except...these people don't want to live in a nice apartment in London. they want to live in the Falkland's. So going to war over a tiny spit of land just because you want it is kinda...stupid.
Ironbite-really stupid.
I'm not saying the Argentinians are right, I'm saying Thatcher and any other British Prime Minister who wants to contest Argentina's bullshit claim, is wrong.
Well if their claim is bullshit, how can a British Prime Minister who wants to contest it be wrong?
Because Argentina, apparently, REALLY REALLY wants the Falkland Islands. To stop them getting it cost lives- like, thousands of lives. The benefit of them not getting it was... negligible. The convenience of a few hundred people? Any more than that?So they should just give in to a bully's demands?
Because Argentina, apparently, REALLY REALLY wants the Falkland Islands. To stop them getting it cost lives- like, thousands of lives. The benefit of them not getting it was... negligible. The convenience of a few hundred people? Any more than that?So they should just give in to a bully's demands?
Newsflash for you, forced deportation is not a pleasant thing, even if you get a new place to live.
It's not forced. If they wanted to stay under Argentine rule, they'd have every right. But there's no reason to sacrifice potentially thousands of lives for the convenience of a handful.As longs as the Brits and Falkland Islanders are willing (and Argentina isn't going to back down), then there's no reason not to. Besides, if the previous war is anything to go by (and it most likely is, considering that the British military is still leaps and bounds ahead of its Argentine counterpart in terms of quality), the lion's share of the losses will be on the Argentine side.
It's not forced. If they wanted to stay under Argentine rule, they'd have every right. But there's no reason to sacrifice potentially thousands of lives for the convenience of a handful.
You have a curious definition of forced. It's "Move or become an Argentinian".Because Argentina, apparently, REALLY REALLY wants the Falkland Islands. To stop them getting it cost lives- like, thousands of lives. The benefit of them not getting it was... negligible. The convenience of a few hundred people? Any more than that?So they should just give in to a bully's demands?
Newsflash for you, forced deportation is not a pleasant thing, even if you get a new place to live.
It's not forced. If they wanted to stay under Argentine rule, they'd have every right. But there's no reason to sacrifice potentially thousands of lives for the convenience of a handful.
Except...these people don't want to live in a nice apartment in London. they want to live in the Falkland's. So going to war over a tiny spit of land just because you want it is kinda...stupid.
Ironbite-really stupid.
I'm not saying the Argentinians are right, I'm saying Thatcher and any other British Prime Minister who wants to contest Argentina's bullshit claim, is wrong.
Well if their claim is bullshit, how can a British Prime Minister who wants to contest it be wrong?
The British claim is equally bullshit, and the cost of contesting the Argentinian claim is not worth the probable benefit.
It's not forced. If they wanted to stay under Argentine rule, they'd have every right. But there's no reason to sacrifice potentially thousands of lives for the convenience of a handful.As longs as the Brits and Falkland Islanders are willing (and Argentina isn't going to back down), then there's no reason not to. Besides, if the previous war is anything to go by (and it most likely is, considering that the British military is still leaps and bounds ahead of its Argentine counterpart in terms of quality), the lion's share of the losses will be on the Argentine side.
Regarding your claims on the supposed worthlessness of the islands, you're no doubt aware of the recent discovery of substantial offshore oil reserves in South America, right? Considering a large source of disagreement between Argentina and Britain over the issue is territorial rights on the surrounding waters and the seabed in particular, there's a pretty good chance that there could be oil in the area.
And just for your info: The last war was 649 Argentine dead to 255 British. Yes it's a lot, but it's not the thousands you're claiming.Still 904 too many. I think we were discussing about the principle of the matter, not how many dead a war would entail.
You have a curious definition of forced. It's "Move or become an Argentinian".Because Argentina, apparently, REALLY REALLY wants the Falkland Islands. To stop them getting it cost lives- like, thousands of lives. The benefit of them not getting it was... negligible. The convenience of a few hundred people? Any more than that?So they should just give in to a bully's demands?
Newsflash for you, forced deportation is not a pleasant thing, even if you get a new place to live.
It's not forced. If they wanted to stay under Argentine rule, they'd have every right. But there's no reason to sacrifice potentially thousands of lives for the convenience of a handful.
Let's put it this way. There are a few millions of people living on Taiwan. The PRC really, really wants to have that island. Why don't we just move the inhabitants to <some other place>, and let the continental Chinese have it?
A general policy of "If you want it bad enough, we'll give it to you" has major costs, actually. In the short term, yes, you're avoiding the loss of lives. Long term, though, everyone knows that you'll give in if they threaten you hard enough, so you incur on many costs or loss of potential benefits.
My good friends, this is the second time there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. Now I recommend you go home, and sleep quietly in your beds.
-N. Chamberlain
Sept. 30, 1938
A general policy of "If you want it bad enough, we'll give it to you" has major costs, actually. In the short term, yes, you're avoiding the loss of lives. Long term, though, everyone knows that you'll give in if they threaten you hard enough, so you incur on many costs or loss of potential benefits.
As a side comment, and I could be wrong about this, but I don't think the Argentinian government has the balls to actually start a war this time. The military is in an even worse state than in '82, and they really can't afford, PR-wise, the comparison with the dictatorship that started the last one. So the cost of refusing to part with the Falklands is limited to economic attacks (like the whole "banning Falklands-flagged ships from entering Mercosur ports" thing). In effect, you're weighing convenience against convenience. Probably.
What's the point of having an army if you're not willing to use it to defend your territory and citizens?
Belgium will be annexing the channel islands next (yes, right out from under the Frenches noses, they're sneaky like that).
Art, it should be noted that there's also oil in mainland Argentina: There's a long and tortuous story involved in it, if you want I can PM you it?Nah, it's cool. I was just pointing out that potential offshore oil near the Falklands kind of kills Fred's claim that the islands are economically useless to both sides.
You have a curious definition of forced. It's "Move or become an Argentinian".Because Argentina, apparently, REALLY REALLY wants the Falkland Islands. To stop them getting it cost lives- like, thousands of lives. The benefit of them not getting it was... negligible. The convenience of a few hundred people? Any more than that?So they should just give in to a bully's demands?
Newsflash for you, forced deportation is not a pleasant thing, even if you get a new place to live.
It's not forced. If they wanted to stay under Argentine rule, they'd have every right. But there's no reason to sacrifice potentially thousands of lives for the convenience of a handful.
Let's put it this way. There are a few millions of people living on Taiwan. The PRC really, really wants to have that island. Why don't we just move the inhabitants to <some other place>, and let the continental Chinese have it?
The Chinese government does rule Taiwan- the descendents of Chiang's murderous lackeys have no claim to independence. They are certainly not indigenous to the island. In fact, they shot all the locals, in one of the few successful genocides since 1945.
That said, if you've got somewhere to put them, I'm sure they can be made happy to bugger off. At the moment they're a living provocation. Frankly their convenience is not worth potential nuclear war.
These ridiculous islands cost more than they're worth. Famously, there were more casualties in the Falklands War than people who lived on the island. Their right not to live in London was not worth more than the right of an equivalent number of people to live without serious injury. Though, apparently, Margaret Thatcher's tory right to run whatever she wanted outweighed both.
Art, it should be noted that there's also oil in mainland Argentina: There's a long and tortuous story involved in it, if you want I can PM you it?Nah, it's cool. I was just pointing out that potential offshore oil near the Falklands kind of kills Fred's claim that the islands are economically useless to both sides.
Godwin.Really? I don't see any reference to Hitler or Nazis there.
Scotsgit: I mean the British being willing to use force defending the Falklands rather than letting the Argentinians have it.
Godwin.Really? I don't see any reference to Hitler or Nazis there.
All I'm seeing is a quote by the 20th century's most famous proponent of appeasement. The fact that a war broke out because of that policy is the point, who that war was with is not.
So rather than throw the word Godwin around why don't you demonstrate how appeasement is a good idea.
Godwin.Really? I don't see any reference to Hitler or Nazis there.
All I'm seeing is a quote by the 20th century's most famous proponent of appeasement. The fact that a war broke out because of that policy is the point, who that war was with is not.
So rather than throw the word Godwin around why don't you demonstrate how appeasement is a good idea.
If we don't maintain British rule and the population on the Falklands, the Argentinians will somehow invade England! Wheeeeee!
No, not Argentina. Key word is "everyone", as in, y'know, everyone who might want to demand something from the British government. It doesn't even have to be land, could be policy reform or money or whatever. If you have the general policy of avoiding any confrontation when the threat of violence is high enough, then anyone who can create a large enough threat of violence wins by default, even if actually doing what they threaten to do would be even worse for them.A general policy of "If you want it bad enough, we'll give it to you" has major costs, actually. In the short term, yes, you're avoiding the loss of lives. Long term, though, everyone knows that you'll give in if they threaten you hard enough, so you incur on many costs or loss of potential benefits.
You think Argentina is going to come and try to occupy Cornwall?
On second thought, stick with the Godwin accusations, you were doing better.Godwin.Really? I don't see any reference to Hitler or Nazis there.
All I'm seeing is a quote by the 20th century's most famous proponent of appeasement. The fact that a war broke out because of that policy is the point, who that war was with is not.
So rather than throw the word Godwin around why don't you demonstrate how appeasement is a good idea.
If we don't maintain British rule and the population on the Falklands, the Argentinians will somehow invade England! Wheeeeee!
No, not Argentina. Key word is "everyone", as in, y'know, everyone who might want to demand something from the British government. It doesn't even have to be land, could be policy reform or money or whatever. If you have the general policy of avoiding any confrontation when the threat of violence is high enough, then anyone who can create a large enough threat of violence wins by default, even if actually doing what they threaten to do would be even worse for them.A general policy of "If you want it bad enough, we'll give it to you" has major costs, actually. In the short term, yes, you're avoiding the loss of lives. Long term, though, everyone knows that you'll give in if they threaten you hard enough, so you incur on many costs or loss of potential benefits.
You think Argentina is going to come and try to occupy Cornwall?
But that's silly. Countries should only fight when they have to. If the benefits (convenience) do not outweigh the costs (hundreds of deaths, thousands of injuries) then there should never be any fighting.I agree with you on 'Countries should only fight when they have to'. And I think someone annexing their territory against the wishes of the inhabitants is where the line should be drawn at the least.
But that's silly. Countries should only fight when they have to. If the benefits (convenience) do not outweigh the costs (hundreds of deaths, thousands of injuries) then there should never be any fighting.I agree with you on 'Countries should only fight when they have to'. And I think someone annexing their territory against the wishes of the inhabitants is where the line should be drawn at the least.
But that's silly. Countries should only fight when they have to. If the benefits (convenience) do not outweigh the costs (hundreds of deaths, thousands of injuries) then there should never be any fighting.I agree with you on 'Countries should only fight when they have to'. And I think someone annexing their territory against the wishes of the inhabitants is where the line should be drawn at the least.
A few thousand people and some sheep. Who don't even need to be there. There would be no harm at all in simply moving them somewhere nicer, at the cost of the state, or allowing them to become Argentinians. I see no need for perhaps hundreds of lives to .
If they had some long-term cultural connection to the place, or if the place had some strategic importance (like Gibralter) or economic value or geographic significance that might be a different story. But they don't. They're a bunch of rocks, hardly anyone lives on them. Like Taiwan. They don't matter even slightly except as a provocation to both sides.
Like white Mozambicans, you mean?
If they had some long-term cultural connection to the place, or if the place had some strategic importance (like Gibralter) or economic value or geographic significance that might be a different story. But they don't. They're a bunch of rocks, hardly anyone lives on them. Like Taiwan. They don't matter even slightly except as a provocation to both sides.
Like white Mozambicans, you mean?
Or native-born Israelis.
They're a bunch of rocks, hardly anyone lives on them. Like Taiwan. They don't matter even slightly except as a provocation to both sides.Oh, I notice you're still ignoring the fact that they're not at all useless. You know what oil is? Do you know that there's a lot of the stuff just off the coast of South America? Do you know that a big part of the disputes between Argentina and Britain is over drilling rights in the surrounding waters?
They're a bunch of rocks, hardly anyone lives on them. Like Taiwan. They don't matter even slightly except as a provocation to both sides.Oh, I notice you're still ignoring the fact that they're not at all useless. You know what oil is? Do you know that there's a lot of the stuff just off the coast of South America? Do you know that a big part of the disputes between Argentina and Britain is over drilling rights in the surrounding waters?
Well we can live in hope, though considering his argument is apparently that the Falkland people don't deserve the military protection of their government to whom they pay taxes (unless they have an arbitrary "cultural connection" to the place), I'm not sure it's particularly likely.They're a bunch of rocks, hardly anyone lives on them. Like Taiwan. They don't matter even slightly except as a provocation to both sides.Oh, I notice you're still ignoring the fact that they're not at all useless. You know what oil is? Do you know that there's a lot of the stuff just off the coast of South America? Do you know that a big part of the disputes between Argentina and Britain is over drilling rights in the surrounding waters?
Yeah, I just mentioned something about there may be60 billion barrels of oil beneath the territorial waters of the Falkland islands
Do you think if we keep subtly mentioning it he will eventually notice and comment on it?
They're a bunch of rocks, hardly anyone lives on them. Like Taiwan. They don't matter even slightly except as a provocation to both sides.Oh, I notice you're still ignoring the fact that they're not at all useless. You know what oil is? Do you know that there's a lot of the stuff just off the coast of South America? Do you know that a big part of the disputes between Argentina and Britain is over drilling rights in the surrounding waters?
They're a bunch of rocks, hardly anyone lives on them. Like Taiwan. They don't matter even slightly except as a provocation to both sides.Oh, I notice you're still ignoring the fact that they're not at all useless. You know what oil is? Do you know that there's a lot of the stuff just off the coast of South America? Do you know that a big part of the disputes between Argentina and Britain is over drilling rights in the surrounding waters?
When did they discover this oil? Was it after Thatcher's war?
That might provide a reasonable justification for the conflict from a realist's perspective. Assuming Britain knew about it.
In February 2010, exploratory drilling for oil was begun by Desire Petroleum,[107] but the results from the first test well were disappointing.[108] Two months later, on 6 May 2010, Rockhopper Exploration announced that "it may have struck oil".[109] Subsequent tests showed it to be a commercially viable find,[110] an appraisal project was launched [111] and on 14 September 2011 Rockhopper Exploration announced plans are under way for oil production to commence in 2016, through the use of Floating production storage and offloading (FPSO) technology.[112]
Like white Mozambicans, you mean?
Or native-born Israelis.
Exactly.
Like white Mozambicans, you mean?
Or native-born Israelis.
Exactly.
So you think it would be alright to forcibly uproot MILLIONS of people from the only home they have ever known just because their grandparents weren't born there?
Not according to a previous thread; it wold be terribly inconvenient and the Aborigines don't really want the non-natives to leave. This thread (http://forums.fstdt.net/politics-and-government/israel-should-consider-assassinating-obama/) if you are morbidly curious (starts around page 3).Like white Mozambicans, you mean?
Or native-born Israelis.
Exactly.
So you think it would be alright to forcibly uproot MILLIONS of people from the only home they have ever known just because their grandparents weren't born there?
So we can kick everyone out of Australia then?
Not according to a previous thread; it wold be terribly inconvenient and the Aborigines don't really want the non-natives to leave. This thread (http://forums.fstdt.net/politics-and-government/israel-should-consider-assassinating-obama/) if you are morbidly curious (starts around page 3).Like white Mozambicans, you mean?
Or native-born Israelis.
Exactly.
So you think it would be alright to forcibly uproot MILLIONS of people from the only home they have ever known just because their grandparents weren't born there?
So we can kick everyone out of Australia then?
Thanks, I tried following the logic and felt myself losing the will to live.
Not according to a previous thread; it wold be terribly inconvenient and the Aborigines don't really want the non-natives to leave. This thread (http://forums.fstdt.net/politics-and-government/israel-should-consider-assassinating-obama/) if you are morbidly curious (starts around page 3).Like white Mozambicans, you mean?
Or native-born Israelis.
Exactly.
So you think it would be alright to forcibly uproot MILLIONS of people from the only home they have ever known just because their grandparents weren't born there?
So we can kick everyone out of Australia then?