• wurzelgummidge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    24
    ·
    1 year ago

    “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.

        • Aceticon@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, since New Zeeland became an indepent nation there really hasn’t been any proper fallback if anything happens to Wales…

      • TheLurker@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s the pot calling the kettle black. Last time I checked the Argentine government is 1-0 for starting wars over the Falklands and 0-1 for winning one.

        • MataVatnik@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Not really, I spend time in English and argentinian communities and I see more British nationalists going apeshit anytime the subject gets brought up, i mean, look at your comment. They also project wild opinions and have baseless assumptions on the general argentian populations opinion on the war. Its kinda nuts. Argentinians have really negative feelings as it relates to their country any time the topic gets brought up and don’t really think about the falklands the same way British nationalists think they do.

          • TheLurker@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            So do I once again need to point out the obvious.

            Argentina started a war over an island that contained British nationals and has never been populated by anything other than British nationals.

            Argentina continually refused to have the case of sovereignty heard by the International Court of Justice. Despite the UK offering twice.

            And this thread is still full of Argentinian supporters sprouting bullshit factually inaccurate claims.

            But yes it is the British who are unreasonable in this instance. 🙄

            • MataVatnik@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              And this thread is still full of Argentinian supporters sprouting bullshit factually inaccurate claims.

              I’ll take back what I said if you can link me three of these comments that this thread is full of.

        • Furball@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          39
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          There was nobody living there before the British arrived, but after the British arrived British people moved there. It seems to me that the only country with a good claim, is Britain

          • kilinrax@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            26
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Actually the first colonists were French. The claim was transferred to Spain via a pact between the Bourbon kings of both countries. The Spanish name for The Falklands derives from the French, Îles Malouines, named after Saint-Malo/Sant-Maloù.

            The Argentinians only ever occupied the islands for six months, for a penal colony - which ended via mutiny, not military expulsion. They’ve otherwise been under continuous British occupation since 1833, barring the 1982 war.

            I’m English, and by no means pro-English colonialism, but the Argentine claim is spurious nonsense.

            • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              1 year ago

              According to Wikipedia, The French and English colonized two separate islands within months of each other, though the French are credited with being there first. Historians apparently disagree on whether or not the two settlements knew the other was there for the first year.

              The English have the longest claim that was never relinquished, since the French gave their settlement to Spain years after the French and English set up the original two colonies.

              • kilinrax@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Why do you keep posting this link? It’s not convincing anybody of the validity of an Argentine claim, it’s presumptuous of you to assume people haven’t read it, and it doesn’t back up a number statements you’ve made (“The UN asked Great Britain to give the island back to Argentina, but they refused.” for instance).

                • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Why do you keep posting this link?

                  Because most people are just saying stuff that is not true, which the link corrects.

                  It’s not convincing anybody of the validity of an Argentine claim

                  If you read their comments that I reply to with that link, the facts documented contradicts what they are saying, and hence, may convince people of the validity of the claim.

                  it’s presumptuous of you to assume people haven’t read it

                  Not if I see people getting facts wrong its not.

                  • kilinrax@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Because most people are just saying stuff that is not true, which the link corrects.

                    But you’re often just commenting the link, which puts the onus on the person you’re replying to to read the entire Wikipedia page in order to decipher what you’re contesting. Kind of like assigning homework. Again, presumptuous.

                    If you read their comments that I reply to with that link, the facts documented contradicts what they are saying, and hence, may convince people of the validity of the claim.

                    Unlikely. People won’t put in the work to decipher you, so it’s a poor methodology for convincing anyone.

                    Not if I see people getting facts wrong its not.

                    You’ve also got facts wrong, as mentioned above.

          • Madison420@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            15
            ·
            1 year ago

            Not true, it was sparcely populated and in 1831 an American warship raided the area dissolved the government and rolled back out. 1833 the English come back and claimed the island and the dispute keeps on.

    • Roflmasterbigpimp@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.”