• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    451 year ago

    Because “getting them back” worked so well for the (not for long) ruling regime of Argentina last time around. Lol.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      491 year ago

      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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        611 year ago

        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.

        • livus
          link
          fedilink
          581 year ago

          Kissinger has done a supernatural amount of damage to the world.

        • PugJesus
          link
          fedilink
          41 year ago

          I thought Isabel Peron was just in the line of succession when Juan Peron died, and was herself prone to pursue anti-leftist policies?

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            21 year ago

            She was the vice president and took over when Perón died. And yes, by that time they were pretty anti leftist.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    271 year ago

    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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        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?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          71 year ago

          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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            31 year ago

            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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      10
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        41 year ago

        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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          21 year ago

          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.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    281 year ago

    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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      51 year ago

      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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      111 year ago

      Falklands nascent oil industry + giving the population a rallying cry to distract from poor economic conditions.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        31 year ago

        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.

        • Cosmic Cleric
          link
          fedilink
          English
          10
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            21 year ago

            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.

            • Cosmic Cleric
              link
              fedilink
              English
              31 year ago

              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.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                21 year ago

                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

                • Cosmic Cleric
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  21 year ago

                  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).

          • Herbal Gamer
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            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

            • Cosmic Cleric
              link
              fedilink
              English
              41 year ago

              Oh everybody knows that

              But they never say it in public, if they can help it.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            31 year ago

            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.

            • Cosmic Cleric
              link
              fedilink
              English
              31 year ago

              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.

              • I Cast Fist
                link
                fedilink
                English
                11 year ago

                Either a 100km or 200km radius around land, if I’m not mistaken. Leads to some very… “interesting” situations in Greece/Turkey.

    • Cosmic Cleric
      link
      fedilink
      English
      271 year ago

      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.

    • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin
      link
      fedilink
      English
      51 year ago

      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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        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?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          81 year ago

          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.

        • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin
          link
          fedilink
          English
          61 year ago

          I was pointing out that they aren’t an indigenous people under British colonial rule, they are themselves Brits who identify solidly with Britain.

    • Enkrod
      link
      fedilink
      English
      181 year ago

      It’s about the territorial waters that come with them

    • Cosmic Cleric
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11 year ago

      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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11 year ago

      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.

  • Blue and Orange
    link
    fedilink
    English
    311 year ago

    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

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      61 year ago

      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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        Argentina has esentially no navy to speak of, and what it can field would be conpletely smashed by the typhoons stationed on the islands.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      41 year ago

      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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      231 year ago

      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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        281 year ago

        They’d last a day against the Royal Navy because it would take longer than a day to get there.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          111 year ago

          There are 1500 troops stationed in the Falklands and a sizable force at Royal Air Force Station Ascension.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          101 year ago

          Oh, I’d expect a British ship or two to hang out very near the Falklands for as long as he’s in power.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            51 year ago

            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.

  • Roflmasterbigpimp
    link
    fedilink
    English
    171 year ago

    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 *

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    191 year ago

    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.

  • theinspectorst
    link
    fedilink
    951 year ago

    ‘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…

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      4
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      • theinspectorst
        link
        fedilink
        251 year ago

        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.

      • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin
        link
        fedilink
        English
        31 year ago

        That would give Spain a claim on them then, not the country that exists because it said it was not Spain.

        • Cosmic Cleric
          link
          fedilink
          English
          21 year ago

          Have you even read it?

          Honestly, you think I would go through all of this if I had not read it? No reason to be a jerk about this.

            • Cosmic Cleric
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 year ago

              If you have read it you have not understood it.

              /sigh

              If nothing else, you can see that I’ve been arguing from a position of some knowledge on the matter, bring up coherent facts to bolster my opinions.

              You may not agree with my conclusions, but it doesn’t mean that I haven’t read what I’ve been citing as part of my argument in this discussion.

              So please, stop attacking my intelligence. It doesn’t make for a good discussion, and makes Lemmy more toxic.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                91 year ago

                If nothing else, you can see that I’ve been arguing from a position of some knowledge on the matter, bring up coherent facts to bolster my opinions.

                Hahahahaha

                • Cosmic Cleric
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  1
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  If nothing else, you can see that I’ve been arguing from a position of some knowledge on the matter, bring up coherent facts to bolster my opinions.

                  Hahahahaha

                  Noticed you didn’t quote my next sentence…

                  You may not agree with my conclusions, but it doesn’t mean that I haven’t read what I’ve been citing as part of my argument in this discussion.

                  If that’s the best you got in way of debating, then that doesn’t bode well for Lemmy going forward.

              • cartoon meme dog
                link
                fedilink
                English
                101 year ago

                dude, you are a rabid nationalist, and it’s affecting your perception of reality.

                you’re posting the same comment again and again, which doesn’t even support your case, and totally missing the points that everyone else is talking about.

                go for a long walk in fresh air, and maybe consider that your hurt feelings about what flags fly where don’t outweigh the virtually unanimous decision of the people who have actually lived on the islands for generations.

                • Cosmic Cleric
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  11 year ago

                  dude, you are a rabid nationalist, and it’s affecting your perception of reality.

                  You know nothing about me, and are determined to ‘Kill the Messenger’. If you still feel the need to be rude, carry on, Internet Warrior.

    • some pirate
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 year ago

      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

      • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin
        link
        fedilink
        English
        41 year ago

        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

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    131 year ago

    Yeah, Argentina is about to explode into civil war. That place is going to be real dangerous in the next few months.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    331 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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          41 year ago

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

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          391 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

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            26
            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.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                51 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
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  21 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.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              101 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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11 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.”