'Get them back'. What does 'back' even mean in this statement? Of all the countries that have ever legitimately ruled the Falklands, Argentina was never one of them.
The penguins have a better claim to the Falklands than Argentina...
I agree it's more British than Argentinian. But "Argentina never one of the rulers" isn't quite right. There were several stints of Argentinan (or Spanish but back when that was the same thing) occupation long before the war.
Yeah, Spanish. That's the point. There were penguins, then was French, it was Spanish, it was British. It was never Argentinian. There were never civilians there.
The only civilians who have lived there are the Falkland Islanders, who identify as British. Argentina's claim is based on the Spanish once having a very limited military presence there, on which basis they want to assert some sort of imperialist sovereignty over a bunch of civilians whose ancestors have been there for hundreds of years and who have only ever considered themselves British.
There were penguins, then was French, it was Spanish, it was British. It was never Argentinian.
They inherited the islands from Spain (as per their claim) when they won their independence from Spain.
Those islands are allot closer to Argentina than Great Britain, and closer to Argentina than Hawaii is from the US.
That would give Spain a claim on them then, not the country that exists because it said it was not Spain.
Malvinas islans are legally and physically part of Argentina and this is accepted by a majority in the UN, they are also the symbol of the centrist liberals (imagine the island of the statue of liberty) so this new neonazi psycho (and elon fan redditor) wants to "eliminate" their symbols including the ministries, universal health care, education systems, social plans that support several million of poor and make their party illegal
The metric by which Argentina has a legal claim on the islands would also give the US a claim.
Argentina is making the case for being invaded by the US under the causus belli of defense from an invading force whenever they say they get to eat the Falklands because something something tordesillas
France too
That's not what I'm debating here, what I debating is that the new far right regime is willing to sacrifice sovereign land just to make a point, to "own the leberals"
Just a reminder: that there was no one living in the Falklands prior to the UK and France showing up. My understanding is that no one even wanted the islands until they found oil nearby. While it's weird that the UK has a colony all the way down at the tip of South America, there's no reason to argue for Argentinian ownership of the Falklands. Hell, Argentina taking ownership of the Falklands is more colonialist than UK maintaining ownership due to the population being mostly British and French.
I personally think calling them a colony is incorrect. They are an island where UK citizens live and have lived since the beginning of human habitation. They get to vote. They have the same culture and want to stay in the UK. The only thing that matches the colonial definition is that they are far away which is a relative term.
I think the people living there are technically indigenous.
I mean the original US states were also British colonies with
ethnically British people having fairly British culture. They just revolted over unfair taxes and the culture diverged with immigration of other Europeans.
The main difference between the pre revolution colonies and the Falklands is that there weren't any natives on the Falklands that had to be removed first, and the Falklands are much smaller and less important.
Falklands is that there weren’t any natives on the Falklands that had to be removed first
Actually I believe there were a few Argentinians there they were removed forcefully, in 1833.
It was discovered and settled by Britain, France, and Spain (in that order). But nobody lived there except some gauchos and soldiers (many of whom were British)
Pinedo entertained plans for resisting, but finally desisted because of his obvious numerical inferiority and the want of enough nationals among his crew (approximately 80% of his forces were British mercenaries who refused to fight their countrymen).[citation needed] The British forces disembarked on 3 January and switched the flags, delivering the Argentine one to Pinedo, who left on 5 January.[3]
Recognising Vernet's settlement had British permission, Onslow set about ensuring the continuation of that settlement for the replenishment of passing ships. The gauchos had not been paid since Vernet's departure and were anxious to return to the mainland. Onslow persuaded them to stay by paying them in silver for provisions and promising that in the absence of Vernet's authority they could earn their living from the feral cattle on the islands.
The modern nation of Argentina didn't exist in 1833. They were the "United Provinces of the Río de la Plata". If you think they have a claim, then Bolivia, Brazil, and Uruguay have an equal claim. Do you believe that?
But nobody lived there except some gauchos and soldiers (many of whom were British)
France was the first country to establish a permanent settlement in the Falkland Islands, with the foundation of Port-Saint-Louis on East Falkland by French explorer Louis Antoine de Bougainville in 1764.[2] The French colony consisted of a small fort and some settlements with a population of around 250.
A pop of 250 is not "some gauchos and soldiers". They were not even "(many of whom were British)".
I mean, we can go down the rabbit hole and start a population census conversation based on year-to-year, but that seems excessive for the conversation being had, and something that is really not needed.
Its fair to say that the French had a presence there, they gave that presence to Spain, and Argentina inherited that presence from Spain (going around the long way, as the Doctor would say).
The gauchos are the settlers you mentioned. The soldiers were mostly British mercenaries. Did you read the article?
A colony of 240 people are not a few people, and are not all comprised of just gauchos or British mercenaries, they were French there as well.
I'm going to "bow out" of further replies. I've been at this for coming up on 24 hours now, and am tired of everyone wanting their "pound of flesh", and have said pretty much everything I can say. No disrespect meant to you, just thing the conversation has reached a termination point. Take care.
They are an island where UK citizens live and have lived since the beginning of human habitation.
The Falklands were never inhabited by aboriginals.
In fact, there is no evidence that Aboriginal or Argentinian people had ever visited or had knowledge that the islands existed prior to the British arriving.
The Falklands were never inhabited by aboriginals.
Yep. That was one of reasons of Argentina's objections to the British claim, that the british citizens are not indigenous to the island.
In fact, there is no evidence that Aboriginal or Argentinian people had ever visited or had knowledge that the islands existed prior to the British arriving.
That's not true. Check out the wiki page about it, it has a whole timeline, including who lived on it when.
Also, Argentina claims ownership by inheritance from Spain when they won their independence from Spain.
So Britain was controlling the Islands before Spain, yet you're still claiming Argentina inherited them by Spain. Wouldn't they technically belong to France by your logic?
So Britain was controlling the Islands before Spain, yet you’re still claiming Argentina inherited them by Spain. Wouldn’t they technically belong to France by your logic?
Depends on when who vacated the island and who took it over after that, and if vacating even means giving up on ownership or not (IANAL).
The link I've been posting goes over the history, and nations have come and gone and come and gone and come and kicked out others, on that island. Its a mess.
I don't know what you're reading, but the actual history of the island reads as follows:
"The islands were uninhabited when discovered by Europeans. France established a colony on the islands in 1764. In 1765, a British captain claimed the islands for Britain. In early 1770 a Spanish commander arrived from Buenos Aires with five ships and 1,400 soldiers forcing the British to leave Port Egmont. Britain and Spain almost went to war over the islands, but the British government decided that it should withdraw its presence from many overseas settlements in 1774."
My understanding is that no one even wanted the islands until they found oil nearby.
Bingo!
there’s no reason to argue for Argentinian ownership of the Falklands. Hell, Argentina taking ownership of the Falklands is more colonialist than UK maintaining ownership
The United Nations says otherwise.
The Wiki page is really interesting reading on the ownership of that island, really jumps around over the centuries.
This one part of the article really jumps out at me...
That self-determination is further rendered inapplicable due to the disruption of the territorial integrity of Argentina that began with a forceful removal of its authorities in the islands in 1833, thus there is a failure to comply with an explicit requirement of UN Resolution 1514 (XV).[93][94]
Because “getting them back” worked so well for the (not for long) ruling regime of Argentina last time around. Lol.
Just for who didn't know the story: in order to distract the population from a 120% inflation, the ruling far right dictator decided to take back the islands, (sounds similar?) thinking that the us would support them and that the UK wouldn't fight back.
Anyway the UK is very far and it would take months to send reinforcements, right? And the US loves us, just because we're not communists like other neighbors. We gonna just take them back with a special military operation, no war declaration needed.
While for a short time it worked as the local media was ecstatic about getting back the Malvinas islands and didn't talk anymore about the rampant inflation, it eventually backfired spectacularly and the fascist regime was overturned.
That government was put in power after a US-backed coup overthrew the democratically-elected Isabel Perón. Henry Kissinger was instrumental in orchestrating the coup.
Kissinger has done a supernatural amount of damage to the world.
And he's somehow still alive, thus proving that there is no God.
Yes his existence singlehandedly disproves the fair/just world hypothesis as well.
Turns out that what goes around doesn't come around after all.
He is truly an evil motherfucker. Every once in a while I still come across some fresh new horror he was involved in.
Just started this book. It's a great read but I'm super depressed for it.
Looks good, but I don't think I could! Kissinger depressed me for years. I'm old enough to remember some of his antics when they happened.
I thought Isabel Peron was just in the line of succession when Juan Peron died, and was herself prone to pursue anti-leftist policies?
She was the vice president and took over when Perón died. And yes, by that time they were pretty anti leftist.
Are we just doing out of order reruns of the 20th century?
Oh God. Pls no. 🇩🇪
Gotta get people reading more history textbooks and visiting more 20th-century museums. Some, like the Holocaust Museum in DC, are about as pleasant as getting a fishhook caught in your open eye. Which is some of the most compelling arguments for peace I've ever seen. The pictures are etched into my mind decades later, and I still remember the smell of all the leather shoes in there.
I'd like to visit France and Belgum and Italy soon to see the WW1 sites. We've done Normandy and WW2 across Europe and the Pacific. It's also incredibly somber arguments for peace.
Are we just doing out of order reruns of the 20th century?
When it comes to humans, it's been my experience that if you don't resolve issues they come back to bite you in the ass, at some point.
Lol I was wondering just yesterday how long it would take this guy to bring up the Falklands after getting elected.
Normally right-wingers in the UK would be pleased to see someone like him elected, but because of the Argentina-Falklands connection, they're going to hate him lmao
I mean the Falklands war did Thatcher no harm.
I think they're going to love him.
If I remember it correctly the whole Falklands affair worked wonders for Thatcher's popularity.
Mind you, these types have been gutting everything in Britain including the military, so who knows what the outcome would be in a Falklands War v2.
Argentina has esentially no navy to speak of, and what it can field would be conpletely smashed by the typhoons stationed on the islands.
Milei is a lot less focused on the Falklands than the presidents before him. Every Argentinian politician says "we have to get the Falklands back". It's literally in their constitution. Milei says that Thatcher legit kicked their asses and they should try diplomatic means, and maybe try not having 140% inflation so that the islanders would be less opposed to becoming Argentinian.
On a differrent note: What would anybody want of the Falkland Islands? I mean, it is a lousy island with 3000 inhabitants and half a million sheep, and they live of fishing, wool, and day tourism from cruise ships.
On the one hand, maintaining a military presence equivalent to more than half the number of native inhabitants costs the British a shitload of money. On the other hand, starting another bloody war with the UK in the middle of an economic catastrophe over a piece of rock with sheep does not make any sense for Argentina, either.
On a differrent note: What would anybody want of the Falkland Islands?
Oil in the nearby ocean ownership is the reason why.
Its the way international treaties work as far as claiming ownership of resources in the ocean.
It's about the territorial waters that come with them
Falklands nascent oil industry + giving the population a rallying cry to distract from poor economic conditions.
OK, oil could be an incentive, but I doubt that it is much or one would have heard of them.
I should have excluded pure rhetorics as a reason. The Chinese at least had a good economic reason to get Hong Kong into their hands.
OK, oil could be an incentive, but I doubt that it is much or one would have heard of them.
Don't mean to be rude, but you could also just not have been educated on the matter, and its actually more important than you think, especially to those who claim ownership for the oil rights reasons.
Usually world politics, when it comes to oil access/ownership, is not something that is discussed in the open, often. We in the US never say that we do stuff in the Middle East for the oil, we say its for a hunder other reasons, but its first and foremost its for the oil, not that news stations will ever report on that fact.
OK, looks like there is actually serious amounts of oil there. But quite deep and under water. Still, worth more than all of the island wrapped up as a present ;-) TIL.
Its really crazy how that stuff works. I read an article once about how nations try to claim even the smallest piece of rock in places just so that they can have claim over the resources not on land itself but in the ocean around it. Has to do with some UN treaties/rules about resource availability/ownership.
Either a 100km or 200km radius around land, if I'm not mistaken. Leads to some very.... "interesting" situations in Greece/Turkey.
We in the US never say that we do stuff in the Middle East for the oil, we say its for a hunder other reasons, but its first and foremost its for the oil, not that new stations will ever report on that fact.
Oh everybody knows that
Oh everybody knows that
But they never say it in public, if they can help it.
We in the US never say that we do stuff in the Middle East for the oil, we say its for a hunder other reasons, but its first and foremost its for the oil,
While a common conspiracy theory, this is never borne out by evidence.
We in the US never say that we do stuff in the Middle East for the oil, we say its for a hunder other reasons, but its first and foremost its for the oil,
While a common conspiracy theory, this is never borne out by evidence
It's actually been stated officially during reporter questioning actually, multiple times throughout the years. It's just not something you see discussed much on CNN directly.
Don't mean to be rude (in case you're not a bot) but it takes a special kind of ignorance to believe that oil has nothing to do with what's going on in the Middle East. It's not the only factor, but it's definitely a factor.
Oil dictates our relationship with Saudi Arabia, but is not tied to overall ME policy, and there is 0 evidence to the contrary.
Not only am I not a bot, im old enough to remember "no blood for oil" protests and how dumb and distracting they were from legitimate reasons not to engage in ME war.
Your conspiracy theory has gotten people killed
and there is 0 evidence to the contrary.
As I've mentioned previously, during official news conferences officials have stated the need to protect the oil supply and the access to it.
Not only am I not a bot, im old enough to remember “no blood for oil” protests and how dumb and distracting they were from legitimate reasons not to engage in ME war.
As someone who is also old enough to remember those kind of protests, and the embargos, etc., I agree. Fighting over resources is not healthy, and that resources should be shared instead.
Your conspiracy theory has gotten people killed
Its not a conspiracy theory, its what drives the politics in the ME, on multiple levels. And its not my theory, its what the majority of people have decided on (the importance of oil).
Fighting over resources is not healthy
This is quite false, but the US generally uses soft power for oil.
On a differrent note: What would anybody want of the Falkland Islands? I mean, it is a lousy island with 3000 inhabitants and half a million sheep
So it's a Scotland in the southern hemisphere.
Bagpipes, anyone?
Someone jam some oats in a sheep's stomach.
I'm fucking starving.
Nationalist Kvetch entirely, those are Brits on the island, not just British citizens, full on ethnically British Islanders who've lived there almost since anyone knew the islands were there to begin with.
When polled they overwhelmingly voted in favor of remaining with the UK
Falklands are as British as black pudding and the royal corgis. Argentina just keeps pressing the claim because it makes a good nationalist distraction whenever right wing nutcases inevitably prove to be completely incompetent.
Also, any attempt to link it with some overarching notion of decolonization is complete bunk, the islands were uninhabited before they were discovered it's only colonialism if you think the very concept of an exclave is colonialist because that's in effect what they are, a very far removed exclave.
those are Brits on the island, not just British citizens, full on ethnically British Islanders
Why are you mentioning this? Does that mean they're worth saving more than a citizen who isn't "ethnically British"?
What is that anyway? The UK is a collection of countries: England, Scotland, etc. Is there a hierarchy of British ethnicities in your mind? You implied that there is some separation between certain groups, so you must have thought about it. Right?
They were very very clearly mentioning it to show that Argentina has no legitimate claim or argument using any traditional reasoning. You had to work very hard to purposefully misinterpret that statement. Pathetically so.
I was pointing out that they aren't an indigenous people under British colonial rule, they are themselves Brits who identify solidly with Britain.
He has said he wants a diplomatic solution similar to the one that Britain reached with China over Hong Kong.
Wonderful example. What happened to Hong Kong is something that no place in the world really wants to experience.
Yeah the reason HK went the way it did was because China could credibly say "Give it to us or we take it". Argentina already tried the take it by force way, when their military was in a much better state than it is now, and there was effectively no military garrison on the islands. Argentina have pretty much zero leverage here.
last I heard, the people on falkland don't want to be argentinian either.
Which should be the biggest, and loudest, reason to oppose Argentinian demands for the island.
Majority of people in Hong Kong at the time didn't want to be part of China either, a lot of them left China already for a reason.
Okay?
Hong Kong was a completely different situation as the British signed a specific lease for Hong Kong with a set end date that was known all along. Nothing like that happened with the Falklands.
That's a common misconception, the 99 year lease was on the New Territories, rural areas in the north of HK. Hong Kong Island and Kowloon (the heavily urban bits you think of when you think Hong Kong) were under no such lease, they had been permanently ceded to Britain when it was just a fishing village on the coast.
This happens every couple of years, as a populist move in Argentina to avoid tackling the real issues.
The UK will have a nice chuckle, will make some empty threats about protecting its people if needed, and we'll all move on.
What worries me is that this seems to improve the opinion of those in power, and last time the Falklands came up Theresa May loved every second of it because she could act out her Thatcher cosplay fantasies.
I miss the images of her wearing the same goddamn outfits as Thatcher. Shit was surreal.
Argentina: we will retake Las Malvinas!
Royal Navy: Oh really? Try it. We'd really like a chance to demonstrate the combat effectiveness of our QE2 Class Carriers. And Bob here hasn't shot his destroyer's deck guns since '82 and he's bored!
RAF: (Rapidly dusting off the Vulcans and Nimrods)
Royal Marines: (Lights up a Benson & Hedges cigarette)... Right... (Slaps knees and stands up)... Grab yer Bergens and Bayonets lads!
I really hope Argentina doesn't hand the UK's faltering Conservative government a nice patriotic war just before the next election. If they hadn't done that in 1982 we might have seen the back of Thatcher before the worst damage was done.
I mean, the Brits might be chomping at the bit for it. I mean with Brexit and all, I'm pretty sure it's been greyer than usual in the UK. Nothing like completely mopping up some country trying to invade your land to put on a slightly brighter disposition.
That said, I think Milei has mostly been talking about attempting to get them back diplomatically. Which I'm highly doubtful anyone remotely responsible for making that kind of decision in the UK is vaguely affable towards entertaining. Just a hunch.
our QE2 Class Carriers
Plural? Huh, TIL they've got more than one of them.
(I always found it kind of crazy and hilarious that the US has like 10 CATOBAR nuclear-powered carriers and then also a bunch of STOVL diesel-powered ones that we don't even bother counting as "carriers," when every other country has maybe one or a few at best, and most of those are STOVL or worse. I guess the last time I counted was before 2017, though.)
During world War II, the United States had over 150 aircraft carriers which would be the equivalent of a wasp class amphibious assault ship/helicopter carrier.
Soooo trouble in Middle East is back from standby and Argentina is making demands about the Falklands. How about we just stop there and let other famous Conflicts in pease. * sweats in german *
Sorgerechtsverhandlung für Elsass Lothringen 2024?
Nee danke. Ich bin mit den Besuchsrecht zufrieden
Well, if another curbstomping by Britain is what it takes to run this addle-brained right wing moron out of office in short order, then perhaps that's a silver lining.
Uh, last I checked, Britannia rules the waves, not the Falklands. Checkmate, Margaret.
"Now we have to see how we are going to get them back. It is clear that the war option is not a solution."
If more people actually read instead of knee-jerk reacting to click-bait headlines they might have a better understanding of what is going on around them.
British people lose all sense of logic anytime falklands get mentioned.
They need them for strategic sheep reserves
Yeah, since New Zeeland became an indepent nation there really hasn't been any proper fallback if anything happens to Wales...
Yeah because it would be such a great Idea just to straight up say :"I'm going to attack you. But please don't prepare or anything. Just act surprise."
Yeah, Argentina is about to explode into civil war. That place is going to be real dangerous in the next few months.
Oh so THIS is how ww3 starts
I wouldn’t call the Falkland Islands War 2: Electric Boogaloo “WW3”. More like a police action, to be honest. The Argentine Navy and Air Force these days is frankly laughable in comparison to their military strength before the first FI war, let alone the strength of the RN and RAF today.
Who knows, maybe some friends will lend a nuke or two
Not gonna happen
It'd be kinda funny if Putin gave them a "nuke" only for it to be a dud because of lack of maintenance
Why on earth would nukes be given over some islands with a population of only a few thousand?
It's a question of principle
No, it's just nonsense.
Argentina wouldn't last a day against a modern military.
They'd last a day against the Royal Navy because it would take longer than a day to get there.
There are 1500 troops stationed in the Falklands and a sizable force at Royal Air Force Station Ascension.
Oh, I’d expect a British ship or two to hang out very near the Falklands for as long as he’s in power.
At the moment the patrol is a single River class whose largest armament is a 30mm cannon. In the past there tended to be either a frigate or a destroyer in the area, but while the Argentine navy is much diminished they can probably overpower or outmanoeuvre that defence.
So Britain has claimed ownership of the islands longer than Argentina has existed?
longer than Argentina has existed?
Argentina used to belong to Spain, then won their sovereignty. They claim they inherited the islands from Spain when they became a nation.
Cool, so Britain has held the islands longer than Argentina, and the argentinian claim on the falklands is as strong as their claim on Madrid.
Lots of places used to belong to Spain. That doesn't mean Argentina gets them all. Their logic is flawed and specious.
Lots of places used to belong to Spain. That doesn’t mean Argentina gets them all. Their logic is flawed and specious.
The US used to belong to England too, doesn't mean that England can ask for it back. I mean, technically, the US was literally stolen by former British citizens from England by force, legally. At least Canada did their country birth and land title/ownership thing the legal way (AFAIK). That's one hell of a rabbit hole you could go down.
No that's another completely different rabbit hole. That's not the same argument or logic at all. Spain isn't asking for Argentina back. That's the only comparable situation to what you're suggesting.
The comparable logic to what you're saying would be for America to say that because they won their independence from the British they should now also own Bermuda. That's the logic you're using in Argentina claiming the Falklands. Argentina has no claim to the Falklands at all. Neither based on past ownership nor based on citizenship. It's simply another unrelated territory. Argentina might as well claim they should get Chile by the same logic.
That’s not the same argument or logic at all. Spain isn’t asking for Argentina back.
That analogy wasn't about the asking, but about the claim of title and ownership. The asking in and of itself is not the relevant part of the point being made.
You're the one who brought up asking for stuff not me.
As an avenue of making the point of ownership, and not the asking inandof itself.
I'm going to "bow out" of further replies. I've been at this for coming up on 24 hours now, and am tired of everyone wanting their "pound of flesh", and have said pretty much everything I can say. No disrespect meant to you, just thing the conversation has reached a termination point. Take care.
The Falklands were empty until fairly recently in archeological time, so there isn't really anything interesting there.
Inb4 the British core sample the entire island and cart it off in dirt barges
There are so many of those things, I say everyone gets to keep an emotional support island
그리고 독도는 한국 땅!
.z
.,-,-..**x
Z **********
The guy might be a nutjob but I don't think he's talking about getting them back through war, Argentina has next to no military.
Having colonies in the year 2023 is ridiculous though, I don't know why so many comments act like Britain is in the right here in any way whatsoever.
Since when were the Falklands an example of colonialism? Nobody lived there until the Europeans showed up.
If you think the Falklands should be part of Argentina, logically Hawaii should be part of Kiribati. Alaska should be Russian/Canadian, etc etc. If you think about it for more than a minute it becomes clear that geographical location is not the only factor or even the most important one.
Wait, can we give Sarah Palin to Canada? Seems like a fair trade to me.
You guys can take Justin Bieber and Pierre Polivre. We don't want them. I'm sure we can find some remote shed to lock Palin away in while you look after those two.
geographical location is not the only factor or even the most important one
I'm pretty sure that if another country took over Hawaii, or the Catalina Islands off the coast of California, especially just for being able to put a marker down on future oil reserves, that the US would not be ok with that claim.
Even if your bullshit wasn't bullshit, theres another huge difference you are ignoring - the US is capable of doing something about it, Argentina is not.
the US is capable of doing something about it, Argentina is not.
Well, they did try, and failed, but it was costly for both sides, so it wasn't a hard one-sided affair.
Besides, that's not the point I'm trying to make, and not relevant to this discussion. The point of legal ownership by "first rights", and not "might makes right", is what I'm speaking towards.
Cool, so since Britain has held the islands longer than Argentina has existed you consider the matter settled?
Cool, so since Britain has held the islands longer than Argentina has existed you consider the matter settled?
No. Think Argentina has the strongest claim based on previous ownership from Spain, and being the nearest nation to the islands.
But the first settlement there was french, so you're wrong.
But the first settlement there was french, so you’re wrong.
They left though, and then Spain was there.
Agreed about owning colonies. But that's not what this is.
Because the population of the Falklands (that we installed there) want to remain part of Britain for whatever stupid reason.
No one else was there. Why would they want to be part of anything else?
Say what you will. I find it a bit insane that a country can just own an island like that which is nowhere even near their mainland. If you just look at the map it's quite obvious to who that land belongs to.
Something like Hawai is a more difficult case since it's in the middle of ocean. Maybe it should just be a sovereign nation.
EDIT: Though since most people living there are native born Falkland islanders that speak English and voted to stay as a part of the UK then it's perhaps something we should leave be as it is. Kind of similar case as with Israel to be honest.
If you just look at the map it’s quite obvious to who that land belongs to.
Denmark isn't going to be happy about having to give Greenland to Canada but I guess it is what it is.
I'm not advocating for UK to give Falklands to Argentina. It's too late now. Otherwise yes, makes no sense for Denmark to have Greenland either.
If we're going by proximity, there's some Caribbean nations that are even closer to the US than the Falklands are to Argentina, would you argue that we should annex Cuba or the Bahamas?
And from what I understand, the people of the Falklands overwhelming want to be a British territory. I think that's probably the more important consideration.
It is wild that it came to be the way it is. It certainly doesn't make sense to me in the world before modern air travel, the internet, etc. that they'd be ruled by a country so far away, but in this modern era where just about anywhere in the world is only about a day's travel time, or available on-demand 24/7 by phone or computer, it makes every bit as much sense to me that they be a UK territory as it does that Alaska is a US state.
Hawaii is actually a pretty interesting comparison to make, because most Hawaiians did not want to become a US territory at the time, but that's really begging a whole 'nother discussion with lots of complex talking points about imperialism/colonialism, indigenous rights, etc. but I'm frankly just not going to go into that right now. Suffice it to say that it's similar in the sense of it being a small island territory located far from the colonial power that laid claim to it, but the attitudes of the people living there were very different.
I'm no historian or anything of the sort, so take my thoughts on this for what it's worth (and I am certainly biased being an American, don't exactly get a whole lot of Argentinian history books to study, and most of the Spanish I know is food-related, so if someone wants to enlighten me more on the Argentinian side of things, I welcome the education.) But in general my understanding is that the British were the first people to land there, didn't really do much with it at that time, and pretty much just said "finders keepers"
Maybe worth noting, there were no indigenous inhabitants there, so that's probably about as ethical as colonization can get.
Then France showed up and set up shop since the British weren't doing anything with it. Britain came back and also set up shop, and it's not totally clear if either of them even knew the other was there. France eventually decided to fuck off, and let Spain have their bit of the Falklands.
Spain and Britain coexisted for a while, had some scuffles, but more or less worked things out. Eventually Britain pulled out to focus on other things but still considered their "finders keepors" claim to be valid.
Spain eventually pulled out as well, so for a little while no one was really doing much of anything with it officially.
Argentina (technically Buenos Aires at the time if we want to split hairs, I'm going to just use Argentina and Britain to keep the sides easy to follow) comes along, and decides it's theirs, and this is pretty much the root of the dispute. While Britain still held their claim of "finders keepers" Argentina countered with "losers weepers"
Argentina gave some German dude permission to set up a colony for them there to fish and hunt feral cows. Eventually he gets into a fight with an American navy captain over fishing and hunting rights, Captain America kicks their ass a bit and declares the colonial government disolved, and pretty much continues on his merry way. Argentina tries to get things there started back up again but never quite gets their shit back together in the Falklands. A little while later the Brits come back around, still claiming finders keepers, and take charge of everything again, and this time the colonies stick and continue to grow. Argentina spends the next hundred years or so muttering "this is bullshit" to themselves.
Around the 1960s, Britain starts talking about decolonizing, and Argentina gets excited thinking they're going to finally get the Falklands. Britain even quietly floats the idea of giving them the islands, figuring the Islanders would just kind of accept that decision if it was made, and running these islands from halfway around the world was getting kind of expensive. Turns out though that pretty much everyone on the Falklands is pretty damn happy to be British subjects and don't really want to be part of Argentina, which made things a bit complicated.
Argentina gets kind of impatient with all of this, and eventually decided "fuck it, we'll just take them ourselves," Britain cannot abide Argentina's inability to wait patiently in the queue and was starting to really wrap their heads around the idea that the Falklands would rather stay part of Britain and so we get the Falklands war.
Britain wins, Argentina goes back to muttering to themselves, and that pretty much brings us up to the present day.
Great comment! Accurate and entertaining to read. Well done! Was giving up hope, after reading so many bad factual takes on the ownership situation on this topic.
I've been posting the wiki link about the conflict all over this topic. If people ended up not reading that link, I would hope that they read your comment at least.
While Britain still held their claim of “finders keepers” Argentina countered with “losers weepers”
One minor quibble, and to be fair, Argentina is claiming based on the fact that Spain owned the islands, and when Argentina won their independence from Spain, they also got the islands.
British owned it before Spain came into picture. They have a older claim than Spain and therfore Argentinian.
People lived on Hawaii since time immemorial. They had a proper Kingdom and everything with the US meddling with putsches and coups, then they had a Republic, then the US annexed the whole thing, very much not with consent of the Hawaiians. That was 1898, statehood was granted in 1959. The Falklands were uninhabited, settled first by the French in 1764. They also enjoy autonomy in everything but foreign relations and defence and if they wanted to they would readily be granted independence, the situation couldn't be more different. Practically speaking the relation of the Falklands to the UK is much more similar than that of Greenland to Denmark than that of, say, Indiana to the US federal government, which is the exact relationship Hawaii has with the federal government.
Also it's not by far the largest European overseas territory, that'd be French Guyana. Who btw overwhelmingly voted against becoming an overseas collectivity, they kept their status as "just another department" with no more autonomy than the departments in Europe. European colonialism died pretty much exactly with Algerian independence, what's left are a flurry of overseas territories which we couldn't get rid of if we wanted because they want to stay, politically, part of Europe.
Hawaii used to be a sovereign nation.
find it a bit insane that a country can just own an island like that which is nowhere even near their mainland. If you just look at the map it’s quite obvious to who that land belongs to.
The UN agrees with you, and asked Great Britain to give the islands back to Argentina.
Not quite.
The Special Committee on Decolonization concluded its 2021 substantive session today, approving 18 draft resolutions, including one requesting that the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom resume negotiations as soon as possible to reach a peaceful resolution of their sovereignty dispute over the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)*.
Calls on the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to seek a diplomatic solution to their differences and to respect fully the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
I'm assuming thats meant to say negatiate the return of the islands, because there sure as shit nothing else that would be discussed to resolve the diplomatic solution, unless they went for some funky kind of co-op/timeshare solution. They can't state the return blatently because the UK would not agree to that in an initial resolution.
In the ensuing debate, delegates, many from the Latin American and Caribbean region, supported Argentina’s claim of sovereignty and urged Buenos Aires and London to begin negotiations as soon as possible on the basis of the relevant United Nations resolutions. Several cautioned against unilateral actions, expressing concern about the United Kingdom’s military presence in the Falklands (Malvinas), and by extension, the South Atlantic.
The actual verbiage never said that United Kingdom had to return the island to Argentina.
The purposes and principles of UN which is described in chapter 1, says the member nations will not use force to threaten territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
It also states that nations should respect principles of equal rights and self determination.
Argentina is guilty of both of using force to threaten political independence of island and disrespect of self determination of the islanders
The actual verbiage never said that United Kingdom had to return the island to Argentina.
It wouldn't, or else it would never get passef by vote because the UK would vote against it. You need to understand how diplomats state things publicly, especially when they have to vote on them.
When the terminology of 'negotiation' is used, that's what is meant, because there's no other issue to negotiate about, than the return of the islands.
If British had to return the island, it would be to the penguins and walrus. Argentina doesn't have any rights on it.
Before you share another wiki article which you have been spamming the thread with and which refutes your claim. Show a specific line where it is said that Spanish gave the rights to the island to Argentina.
If Spain didn't transfer it then it goes to the initial finders of the island either France or British. Argentina is acting like China or Russia, without having the might. Crying after losing a foolish war they themselves had started.
There was a fight for them and they're still British. There was a referendum and the islanders overwhelmingly want to stay British.
'Get them back'. What does 'back' even mean in this statement? Of all the countries that have ever legitimately ruled the Falklands, Argentina was never one of them.
The penguins have a better claim to the Falklands than Argentina...
#FalklandPenguinRule2024
#PenguinEmpireRising
For The Emperor!
I agree it's more British than Argentinian. But "Argentina never one of the rulers" isn't quite right. There were several stints of Argentinan (or Spanish but back when that was the same thing) occupation long before the war.
Yeah, Spanish. That's the point. There were penguins, then was French, it was Spanish, it was British. It was never Argentinian. There were never civilians there.
The only civilians who have lived there are the Falkland Islanders, who identify as British. Argentina's claim is based on the Spanish once having a very limited military presence there, on which basis they want to assert some sort of imperialist sovereignty over a bunch of civilians whose ancestors have been there for hundreds of years and who have only ever considered themselves British.
They inherited the islands from Spain (as per their claim) when they won their independence from Spain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute
Those islands are allot closer to Argentina than Great Britain, and closer to Argentina than Hawaii is from the US.
That would give Spain a claim on them then, not the country that exists because it said it was not Spain.
Malvinas islans are legally and physically part of Argentina and this is accepted by a majority in the UN, they are also the symbol of the centrist liberals (imagine the island of the statue of liberty) so this new neonazi psycho (and elon fan redditor) wants to "eliminate" their symbols including the ministries, universal health care, education systems, social plans that support several million of poor and make their party illegal
The metric by which Argentina has a legal claim on the islands would also give the US a claim.
Argentina is making the case for being invaded by the US under the causus belli of defense from an invading force whenever they say they get to eat the Falklands because something something tordesillas
France too
That's not what I'm debating here, what I debating is that the new far right regime is willing to sacrifice sovereign land just to make a point, to "own the leberals"
IT IS NOT SOVEREIGN LAND THO
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute
https://press.un.org/en/2021/gacol3347.doc.htm
Just a reminder: that there was no one living in the Falklands prior to the UK and France showing up. My understanding is that no one even wanted the islands until they found oil nearby. While it's weird that the UK has a colony all the way down at the tip of South America, there's no reason to argue for Argentinian ownership of the Falklands. Hell, Argentina taking ownership of the Falklands is more colonialist than UK maintaining ownership due to the population being mostly British and French.
I personally think calling them a colony is incorrect. They are an island where UK citizens live and have lived since the beginning of human habitation. They get to vote. They have the same culture and want to stay in the UK. The only thing that matches the colonial definition is that they are far away which is a relative term.
I think the people living there are technically indigenous.
I mean the original US states were also British colonies with ethnically British people having fairly British culture. They just revolted over unfair taxes and the culture diverged with immigration of other Europeans.
The main difference between the pre revolution colonies and the Falklands is that there weren't any natives on the Falklands that had to be removed first, and the Falklands are much smaller and less important.
Actually I believe there were a few Argentinians there they were removed forcefully, in 1833.
It was discovered and settled by Britain, France, and Spain (in that order). But nobody lived there except some gauchos and soldiers (many of whom were British)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reassertion_of_British_sovereignty_over_the_Falkland_Islands_(1833)
The modern nation of Argentina didn't exist in 1833. They were the "United Provinces of the Río de la Plata". If you think they have a claim, then Bolivia, Brazil, and Uruguay have an equal claim. Do you believe that?
I mean, that's blatantly not true.
From the wiki article ...
A pop of 250 is not "some gauchos and soldiers". They were not even "(many of whom were British)".
I mean, we can go down the rabbit hole and start a population census conversation based on year-to-year, but that seems excessive for the conversation being had, and something that is really not needed.
Its fair to say that the French had a presence there, they gave that presence to Spain, and Argentina inherited that presence from Spain (going around the long way, as the Doctor would say).
The gauchos are the settlers you mentioned. The soldiers were mostly British mercenaries. Did you read the article?
A colony of 240 people are not a few people, and are not all comprised of just gauchos or British mercenaries, they were French there as well.
I'm going to "bow out" of further replies. I've been at this for coming up on 24 hours now, and am tired of everyone wanting their "pound of flesh", and have said pretty much everything I can say. No disrespect meant to you, just thing the conversation has reached a termination point. Take care.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute
What in tarnation
Dang nabbit!
They're not Aboriginal though.
The Falklands were never inhabited by aboriginals.
In fact, there is no evidence that Aboriginal or Argentinian people had ever visited or had knowledge that the islands existed prior to the British arriving.
Yep. That was one of reasons of Argentina's objections to the British claim, that the british citizens are not indigenous to the island.
That's not true. Check out the wiki page about it, it has a whole timeline, including who lived on it when.
Also, Argentina claims ownership by inheritance from Spain when they won their independence from Spain.
So Britain was controlling the Islands before Spain, yet you're still claiming Argentina inherited them by Spain. Wouldn't they technically belong to France by your logic?
Depends on when who vacated the island and who took it over after that, and if vacating even means giving up on ownership or not (IANAL).
The link I've been posting goes over the history, and nations have come and gone and come and gone and come and kicked out others, on that island. Its a mess.
I don't know what you're reading, but the actual history of the island reads as follows:
Bingo!
The United Nations says otherwise.
The Wiki page is really interesting reading on the ownership of that island, really jumps around over the centuries.
This one part of the article really jumps out at me...
Because “getting them back” worked so well for the (not for long) ruling regime of Argentina last time around. Lol.
Just for who didn't know the story: in order to distract the population from a 120% inflation, the ruling far right dictator decided to take back the islands, (sounds similar?) thinking that the us would support them and that the UK wouldn't fight back.
Anyway the UK is very far and it would take months to send reinforcements, right? And the US loves us, just because we're not communists like other neighbors. We gonna just take them back with a special military operation, no war declaration needed.
While for a short time it worked as the local media was ecstatic about getting back the Malvinas islands and didn't talk anymore about the rampant inflation, it eventually backfired spectacularly and the fascist regime was overturned.
That government was put in power after a US-backed coup overthrew the democratically-elected Isabel Perón. Henry Kissinger was instrumental in orchestrating the coup.
Kissinger has done a supernatural amount of damage to the world.
And he's somehow still alive, thus proving that there is no God.
Yes his existence singlehandedly disproves the fair/just world hypothesis as well.
Turns out that what goes around doesn't come around after all.
He is truly an evil motherfucker. Every once in a while I still come across some fresh new horror he was involved in.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial_of_Henry_Kissinger
Just started this book. It's a great read but I'm super depressed for it.
Looks good, but I don't think I could! Kissinger depressed me for years. I'm old enough to remember some of his antics when they happened.
I thought Isabel Peron was just in the line of succession when Juan Peron died, and was herself prone to pursue anti-leftist policies?
She was the vice president and took over when Perón died. And yes, by that time they were pretty anti leftist.
Are we just doing out of order reruns of the 20th century?
Oh God. Pls no. 🇩🇪
Gotta get people reading more history textbooks and visiting more 20th-century museums. Some, like the Holocaust Museum in DC, are about as pleasant as getting a fishhook caught in your open eye. Which is some of the most compelling arguments for peace I've ever seen. The pictures are etched into my mind decades later, and I still remember the smell of all the leather shoes in there.
I'd like to visit France and Belgum and Italy soon to see the WW1 sites. We've done Normandy and WW2 across Europe and the Pacific. It's also incredibly somber arguments for peace.
When it comes to humans, it's been my experience that if you don't resolve issues they come back to bite you in the ass, at some point.
Lol I was wondering just yesterday how long it would take this guy to bring up the Falklands after getting elected.
Normally right-wingers in the UK would be pleased to see someone like him elected, but because of the Argentina-Falklands connection, they're going to hate him lmao
I mean the Falklands war did Thatcher no harm.
I think they're going to love him.
If I remember it correctly the whole Falklands affair worked wonders for Thatcher's popularity.
Mind you, these types have been gutting everything in Britain including the military, so who knows what the outcome would be in a Falklands War v2.
Argentina has esentially no navy to speak of, and what it can field would be conpletely smashed by the typhoons stationed on the islands.
Milei is a lot less focused on the Falklands than the presidents before him. Every Argentinian politician says "we have to get the Falklands back". It's literally in their constitution. Milei says that Thatcher legit kicked their asses and they should try diplomatic means, and maybe try not having 140% inflation so that the islanders would be less opposed to becoming Argentinian.
On a differrent note: What would anybody want of the Falkland Islands? I mean, it is a lousy island with 3000 inhabitants and half a million sheep, and they live of fishing, wool, and day tourism from cruise ships.
On the one hand, maintaining a military presence equivalent to more than half the number of native inhabitants costs the British a shitload of money. On the other hand, starting another bloody war with the UK in the middle of an economic catastrophe over a piece of rock with sheep does not make any sense for Argentina, either.
Oil in the nearby ocean ownership is the reason why.
Its the way international treaties work as far as claiming ownership of resources in the ocean.
It's about the territorial waters that come with them
Falklands nascent oil industry + giving the population a rallying cry to distract from poor economic conditions.
OK, oil could be an incentive, but I doubt that it is much or one would have heard of them.
I should have excluded pure rhetorics as a reason. The Chinese at least had a good economic reason to get Hong Kong into their hands.
Don't mean to be rude, but you could also just not have been educated on the matter, and its actually more important than you think, especially to those who claim ownership for the oil rights reasons.
Usually world politics, when it comes to oil access/ownership, is not something that is discussed in the open, often. We in the US never say that we do stuff in the Middle East for the oil, we say its for a hunder other reasons, but its first and foremost its for the oil, not that news stations will ever report on that fact.
OK, looks like there is actually serious amounts of oil there. But quite deep and under water. Still, worth more than all of the island wrapped up as a present ;-) TIL.
Its really crazy how that stuff works. I read an article once about how nations try to claim even the smallest piece of rock in places just so that they can have claim over the resources not on land itself but in the ocean around it. Has to do with some UN treaties/rules about resource availability/ownership.
Either a 100km or 200km radius around land, if I'm not mistaken. Leads to some very.... "interesting" situations in Greece/Turkey.
Oh everybody knows that
But they never say it in public, if they can help it.
While a common conspiracy theory, this is never borne out by evidence.
It's actually been stated officially during reporter questioning actually, multiple times throughout the years. It's just not something you see discussed much on CNN directly.
Don't mean to be rude (in case you're not a bot) but it takes a special kind of ignorance to believe that oil has nothing to do with what's going on in the Middle East. It's not the only factor, but it's definitely a factor.
Oil dictates our relationship with Saudi Arabia, but is not tied to overall ME policy, and there is 0 evidence to the contrary.
Not only am I not a bot, im old enough to remember "no blood for oil" protests and how dumb and distracting they were from legitimate reasons not to engage in ME war.
Your conspiracy theory has gotten people killed
As I've mentioned previously, during official news conferences officials have stated the need to protect the oil supply and the access to it.
As someone who is also old enough to remember those kind of protests, and the embargos, etc., I agree. Fighting over resources is not healthy, and that resources should be shared instead.
Its not a conspiracy theory, its what drives the politics in the ME, on multiple levels. And its not my theory, its what the majority of people have decided on (the importance of oil).
This is quite false, but the US generally uses soft power for oil.
So it's a Scotland in the southern hemisphere.
Bagpipes, anyone?
Someone jam some oats in a sheep's stomach. I'm fucking starving.
Nationalist Kvetch entirely, those are Brits on the island, not just British citizens, full on ethnically British Islanders who've lived there almost since anyone knew the islands were there to begin with.
When polled they overwhelmingly voted in favor of remaining with the UK
Falklands are as British as black pudding and the royal corgis. Argentina just keeps pressing the claim because it makes a good nationalist distraction whenever right wing nutcases inevitably prove to be completely incompetent.
Also, any attempt to link it with some overarching notion of decolonization is complete bunk, the islands were uninhabited before they were discovered it's only colonialism if you think the very concept of an exclave is colonialist because that's in effect what they are, a very far removed exclave.
Why are you mentioning this? Does that mean they're worth saving more than a citizen who isn't "ethnically British"?
What is that anyway? The UK is a collection of countries: England, Scotland, etc. Is there a hierarchy of British ethnicities in your mind? You implied that there is some separation between certain groups, so you must have thought about it. Right?
They were very very clearly mentioning it to show that Argentina has no legitimate claim or argument using any traditional reasoning. You had to work very hard to purposefully misinterpret that statement. Pathetically so.
I was pointing out that they aren't an indigenous people under British colonial rule, they are themselves Brits who identify solidly with Britain.
Wonderful example. What happened to Hong Kong is something that no place in the world really wants to experience.
Yeah the reason HK went the way it did was because China could credibly say "Give it to us or we take it". Argentina already tried the take it by force way, when their military was in a much better state than it is now, and there was effectively no military garrison on the islands. Argentina have pretty much zero leverage here.
last I heard, the people on falkland don't want to be argentinian either.
Which should be the biggest, and loudest, reason to oppose Argentinian demands for the island.
Majority of people in Hong Kong at the time didn't want to be part of China either, a lot of them left China already for a reason.
Okay?
Hong Kong was a completely different situation as the British signed a specific lease for Hong Kong with a set end date that was known all along. Nothing like that happened with the Falklands.
That's a common misconception, the 99 year lease was on the New Territories, rural areas in the north of HK. Hong Kong Island and Kowloon (the heavily urban bits you think of when you think Hong Kong) were under no such lease, they had been permanently ceded to Britain when it was just a fishing village on the coast.
I fear he was looking at it from China's side.
Being effectively conquered twice before being made to scede some of their land for a century while a foreign power floods the country with drugs?
I think he meant lying when signing the handover treaty and not giving Hong Kongers the rights they agreed to for the time they agreed to.
Exactly this. Otherwise, nobody should expect me to defend the British Empire of all things.
For all the bad things they did, at least they left HK as a democracy including some freedom of the press and expression.
This happens every couple of years, as a populist move in Argentina to avoid tackling the real issues.
The UK will have a nice chuckle, will make some empty threats about protecting its people if needed, and we'll all move on.
What worries me is that this seems to improve the opinion of those in power, and last time the Falklands came up Theresa May loved every second of it because she could act out her Thatcher cosplay fantasies.
I miss the images of her wearing the same goddamn outfits as Thatcher. Shit was surreal.
Argentina: we will retake Las Malvinas!
Royal Navy: Oh really? Try it. We'd really like a chance to demonstrate the combat effectiveness of our QE2 Class Carriers. And Bob here hasn't shot his destroyer's deck guns since '82 and he's bored!
RAF: (Rapidly dusting off the Vulcans and Nimrods)
Royal Marines: (Lights up a Benson & Hedges cigarette)... Right... (Slaps knees and stands up)... Grab yer Bergens and Bayonets lads!
I really hope Argentina doesn't hand the UK's faltering Conservative government a nice patriotic war just before the next election. If they hadn't done that in 1982 we might have seen the back of Thatcher before the worst damage was done.
I mean, the Brits might be chomping at the bit for it. I mean with Brexit and all, I'm pretty sure it's been greyer than usual in the UK. Nothing like completely mopping up some country trying to invade your land to put on a slightly brighter disposition.
That said, I think Milei has mostly been talking about attempting to get them back diplomatically. Which I'm highly doubtful anyone remotely responsible for making that kind of decision in the UK is vaguely affable towards entertaining. Just a hunch.
Plural? Huh, TIL they've got more than one of them.
(I always found it kind of crazy and hilarious that the US has like 10 CATOBAR nuclear-powered carriers and then also a bunch of STOVL diesel-powered ones that we don't even bother counting as "carriers," when every other country has maybe one or a few at best, and most of those are STOVL or worse. I guess the last time I counted was before 2017, though.)
During world War II, the United States had over 150 aircraft carriers which would be the equivalent of a wasp class amphibious assault ship/helicopter carrier.
Soooo trouble in Middle East is back from standby and Argentina is making demands about the Falklands. How about we just stop there and let other famous Conflicts in pease. * sweats in german *
Sorgerechtsverhandlung für Elsass Lothringen 2024?
Nee danke. Ich bin mit den Besuchsrecht zufrieden
Well, if another curbstomping by Britain is what it takes to run this addle-brained right wing moron out of office in short order, then perhaps that's a silver lining.
Uh, last I checked, Britannia rules the waves, not the Falklands. Checkmate, Margaret.
If more people actually read instead of knee-jerk reacting to click-bait headlines they might have a better understanding of what is going on around them.
British people lose all sense of logic anytime falklands get mentioned.
They need them for strategic sheep reserves
Yeah, since New Zeeland became an indepent nation there really hasn't been any proper fallback if anything happens to Wales...
Yeah because it would be such a great Idea just to straight up say :"I'm going to attack you. But please don't prepare or anything. Just act surprise."
Yeah, Argentina is about to explode into civil war. That place is going to be real dangerous in the next few months.
Oh so THIS is how ww3 starts
I wouldn’t call the Falkland Islands War 2: Electric Boogaloo “WW3”. More like a police action, to be honest. The Argentine Navy and Air Force these days is frankly laughable in comparison to their military strength before the first FI war, let alone the strength of the RN and RAF today.
Who knows, maybe some friends will lend a nuke or two
Not gonna happen
It'd be kinda funny if Putin gave them a "nuke" only for it to be a dud because of lack of maintenance
Why on earth would nukes be given over some islands with a population of only a few thousand?
It's a question of principle
No, it's just nonsense.
Argentina wouldn't last a day against a modern military.
They'd last a day against the Royal Navy because it would take longer than a day to get there.
There are 1500 troops stationed in the Falklands and a sizable force at Royal Air Force Station Ascension.
Oh, I’d expect a British ship or two to hang out very near the Falklands for as long as he’s in power.
At the moment the patrol is a single River class whose largest armament is a 30mm cannon. In the past there tended to be either a frigate or a destroyer in the area, but while the Argentine navy is much diminished they can probably overpower or outmanoeuvre that defence.
I think this one is just populist sabre rattling.
Maybe we'll have a nice Article 5 party this time.
Article 5 si limited to the northern hemisphere
We should expand it to be the Pacific Oceanic Trans Atlantic Treaty Organization, the acronym alone basically demands it
Well, now my day is ruined. Although I guess this means French Guyana probably still counts.
It doesn't, forgot to clarify.
Step 1: dissolve central bank
Step 2: piss off capitalists
Step 3: ???
Step 4: profit
Ok compromise. Argentina gets them back but the British museum gets whatever they want from them first.
The thing is, Argentina has never had the Falkland Islands. The British discovered them first.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Falkland_Islands
So Britain has claimed ownership of the islands longer than Argentina has existed?
Argentina used to belong to Spain, then won their sovereignty. They claim they inherited the islands from Spain when they became a nation.
Cool, so Britain has held the islands longer than Argentina, and the argentinian claim on the falklands is as strong as their claim on Madrid.
Lots of places used to belong to Spain. That doesn't mean Argentina gets them all. Their logic is flawed and specious.
The US used to belong to England too, doesn't mean that England can ask for it back. I mean, technically, the US was literally stolen by former British citizens from England by force, legally. At least Canada did their country birth and land title/ownership thing the legal way (AFAIK). That's one hell of a rabbit hole you could go down.
No that's another completely different rabbit hole. That's not the same argument or logic at all. Spain isn't asking for Argentina back. That's the only comparable situation to what you're suggesting.
The comparable logic to what you're saying would be for America to say that because they won their independence from the British they should now also own Bermuda. That's the logic you're using in Argentina claiming the Falklands. Argentina has no claim to the Falklands at all. Neither based on past ownership nor based on citizenship. It's simply another unrelated territory. Argentina might as well claim they should get Chile by the same logic.
That analogy wasn't about the asking, but about the claim of title and ownership. The asking in and of itself is not the relevant part of the point being made.
You're the one who brought up asking for stuff not me.
As an avenue of making the point of ownership, and not the asking inandof itself.
I'm going to "bow out" of further replies. I've been at this for coming up on 24 hours now, and am tired of everyone wanting their "pound of flesh", and have said pretty much everything I can say. No disrespect meant to you, just thing the conversation has reached a termination point. Take care.
The Falklands were empty until fairly recently in archeological time, so there isn't really anything interesting there.
Inb4 the British core sample the entire island and cart it off in dirt barges
There are so many of those things, I say everyone gets to keep an emotional support island
그리고 독도는 한국 땅!
.z .,-,-..**x Z **********
The guy might be a nutjob but I don't think he's talking about getting them back through war, Argentina has next to no military.
Having colonies in the year 2023 is ridiculous though, I don't know why so many comments act like Britain is in the right here in any way whatsoever.
Since when were the Falklands an example of colonialism? Nobody lived there until the Europeans showed up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute
If you think the Falklands should be part of Argentina, logically Hawaii should be part of Kiribati. Alaska should be Russian/Canadian, etc etc. If you think about it for more than a minute it becomes clear that geographical location is not the only factor or even the most important one.
Wait, can we give Sarah Palin to Canada? Seems like a fair trade to me.
You guys can take Justin Bieber and Pierre Polivre. We don't want them. I'm sure we can find some remote shed to lock Palin away in while you look after those two.
I'm pretty sure that if another country took over Hawaii, or the Catalina Islands off the coast of California, especially just for being able to put a marker down on future oil reserves, that the US would not be ok with that claim.
Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute .
Even if your bullshit wasn't bullshit, theres another huge difference you are ignoring - the US is capable of doing something about it, Argentina is not.
Well, they did try, and failed, but it was costly for both sides, so it wasn't a hard one-sided affair.
Besides, that's not the point I'm trying to make, and not relevant to this discussion. The point of legal ownership by "first rights", and not "might makes right", is what I'm speaking towards.
Cool, so since Britain has held the islands longer than Argentina has existed you consider the matter settled?
No. Think Argentina has the strongest claim based on previous ownership from Spain, and being the nearest nation to the islands.
But the first settlement there was french, so you're wrong.
They left though, and then Spain was there.
Agreed about owning colonies. But that's not what this is.
Because the population of the Falklands (that we installed there) want to remain part of Britain for whatever stupid reason.
No one else was there. Why would they want to be part of anything else?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute
Say what you will. I find it a bit insane that a country can just own an island like that which is nowhere even near their mainland. If you just look at the map it's quite obvious to who that land belongs to.
Something like Hawai is a more difficult case since it's in the middle of ocean. Maybe it should just be a sovereign nation.
EDIT: Though since most people living there are native born Falkland islanders that speak English and voted to stay as a part of the UK then it's perhaps something we should leave be as it is. Kind of similar case as with Israel to be honest.
Denmark isn't going to be happy about having to give Greenland to Canada but I guess it is what it is.
I'm not advocating for UK to give Falklands to Argentina. It's too late now. Otherwise yes, makes no sense for Denmark to have Greenland either.
If we're going by proximity, there's some Caribbean nations that are even closer to the US than the Falklands are to Argentina, would you argue that we should annex Cuba or the Bahamas?
And from what I understand, the people of the Falklands overwhelming want to be a British territory. I think that's probably the more important consideration.
It is wild that it came to be the way it is. It certainly doesn't make sense to me in the world before modern air travel, the internet, etc. that they'd be ruled by a country so far away, but in this modern era where just about anywhere in the world is only about a day's travel time, or available on-demand 24/7 by phone or computer, it makes every bit as much sense to me that they be a UK territory as it does that Alaska is a US state.
Hawaii is actually a pretty interesting comparison to make, because most Hawaiians did not want to become a US territory at the time, but that's really begging a whole 'nother discussion with lots of complex talking points about imperialism/colonialism, indigenous rights, etc. but I'm frankly just not going to go into that right now. Suffice it to say that it's similar in the sense of it being a small island territory located far from the colonial power that laid claim to it, but the attitudes of the people living there were very different.
I'm no historian or anything of the sort, so take my thoughts on this for what it's worth (and I am certainly biased being an American, don't exactly get a whole lot of Argentinian history books to study, and most of the Spanish I know is food-related, so if someone wants to enlighten me more on the Argentinian side of things, I welcome the education.) But in general my understanding is that the British were the first people to land there, didn't really do much with it at that time, and pretty much just said "finders keepers"
Maybe worth noting, there were no indigenous inhabitants there, so that's probably about as ethical as colonization can get.
Then France showed up and set up shop since the British weren't doing anything with it. Britain came back and also set up shop, and it's not totally clear if either of them even knew the other was there. France eventually decided to fuck off, and let Spain have their bit of the Falklands.
Spain and Britain coexisted for a while, had some scuffles, but more or less worked things out. Eventually Britain pulled out to focus on other things but still considered their "finders keepors" claim to be valid.
Spain eventually pulled out as well, so for a little while no one was really doing much of anything with it officially.
Argentina (technically Buenos Aires at the time if we want to split hairs, I'm going to just use Argentina and Britain to keep the sides easy to follow) comes along, and decides it's theirs, and this is pretty much the root of the dispute. While Britain still held their claim of "finders keepers" Argentina countered with "losers weepers"
Argentina gave some German dude permission to set up a colony for them there to fish and hunt feral cows. Eventually he gets into a fight with an American navy captain over fishing and hunting rights, Captain America kicks their ass a bit and declares the colonial government disolved, and pretty much continues on his merry way. Argentina tries to get things there started back up again but never quite gets their shit back together in the Falklands. A little while later the Brits come back around, still claiming finders keepers, and take charge of everything again, and this time the colonies stick and continue to grow. Argentina spends the next hundred years or so muttering "this is bullshit" to themselves.
Around the 1960s, Britain starts talking about decolonizing, and Argentina gets excited thinking they're going to finally get the Falklands. Britain even quietly floats the idea of giving them the islands, figuring the Islanders would just kind of accept that decision if it was made, and running these islands from halfway around the world was getting kind of expensive. Turns out though that pretty much everyone on the Falklands is pretty damn happy to be British subjects and don't really want to be part of Argentina, which made things a bit complicated.
Argentina gets kind of impatient with all of this, and eventually decided "fuck it, we'll just take them ourselves," Britain cannot abide Argentina's inability to wait patiently in the queue and was starting to really wrap their heads around the idea that the Falklands would rather stay part of Britain and so we get the Falklands war.
Britain wins, Argentina goes back to muttering to themselves, and that pretty much brings us up to the present day.
Great comment! Accurate and entertaining to read. Well done! Was giving up hope, after reading so many bad factual takes on the ownership situation on this topic.
I've been posting the wiki link about the conflict all over this topic. If people ended up not reading that link, I would hope that they read your comment at least.
One minor quibble, and to be fair, Argentina is claiming based on the fact that Spain owned the islands, and when Argentina won their independence from Spain, they also got the islands.
British owned it before Spain came into picture. They have a older claim than Spain and therfore Argentinian.
People lived on Hawaii since time immemorial. They had a proper Kingdom and everything with the US meddling with putsches and coups, then they had a Republic, then the US annexed the whole thing, very much not with consent of the Hawaiians. That was 1898, statehood was granted in 1959. The Falklands were uninhabited, settled first by the French in 1764. They also enjoy autonomy in everything but foreign relations and defence and if they wanted to they would readily be granted independence, the situation couldn't be more different. Practically speaking the relation of the Falklands to the UK is much more similar than that of Greenland to Denmark than that of, say, Indiana to the US federal government, which is the exact relationship Hawaii has with the federal government.
Also it's not by far the largest European overseas territory, that'd be French Guyana. Who btw overwhelmingly voted against becoming an overseas collectivity, they kept their status as "just another department" with no more autonomy than the departments in Europe. European colonialism died pretty much exactly with Algerian independence, what's left are a flurry of overseas territories which we couldn't get rid of if we wanted because they want to stay, politically, part of Europe.
Hawaii used to be a sovereign nation.
The UN agrees with you, and asked Great Britain to give the islands back to Argentina.
Not quite.
Source
I was speaking more about this, but that's an interesting read as well.
The link you shared shows UN resolution 502 which states:
Nowhere does it mention telling British to return the island to Argentina.
The actual verbage of the third bullet item you listed is as follows ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_502
I'm assuming thats meant to say negatiate the return of the islands, because there sure as shit nothing else that would be discussed to resolve the diplomatic solution, unless they went for some funky kind of co-op/timeshare solution. They can't state the return blatently because the UK would not agree to that in an initial resolution.
https://press.un.org/en/2021/gacol3347.doc.htm
The actual verbiage never said that United Kingdom had to return the island to Argentina.
The purposes and principles of UN which is described in chapter 1, says the member nations will not use force to threaten territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
It also states that nations should respect principles of equal rights and self determination.
Argentina is guilty of both of using force to threaten political independence of island and disrespect of self determination of the islanders
It wouldn't, or else it would never get passef by vote because the UK would vote against it. You need to understand how diplomats state things publicly, especially when they have to vote on them.
When the terminology of 'negotiation' is used, that's what is meant, because there's no other issue to negotiate about, than the return of the islands.
If British had to return the island, it would be to the penguins and walrus. Argentina doesn't have any rights on it.
Before you share another wiki article which you have been spamming the thread with and which refutes your claim. Show a specific line where it is said that Spanish gave the rights to the island to Argentina.
If Spain didn't transfer it then it goes to the initial finders of the island either France or British. Argentina is acting like China or Russia, without having the might. Crying after losing a foolish war they themselves had started.