Conclusion: “rightfully British”? The law seems to be whoever smacks the other in the teeth and takes it by force, so I suppose that’s accurate.
However, having had a settlement in the island, Argentina’s claim is as valid as the UKs, and they just got smacked in the teeth so my verdict is that Argentina takes over administrative control over the Islands up until such time as they meet again in a world cup.
Yes it did. Argentina’s “Venticinco de Mayo” revolution in 1810 made it independent, though a formal declaration happened only in 1816 (technically “the United provinces of the Rio del la Plata”, that’s being nitpicky).
What no, I’m talking of the 1830s. The British came back and expelled the Argentinian settlement, and settled back in.
They came back because the Argentinians occupied it.
I see two different reasons for a claim for Argentina: that they settled when there was no permanent occupation, like the French and the British did originally, and that they inherited Spain’s claim (who purchased the French settlement) following their independence from Spain.
My post was mostly going for humour, but if we’re looking at it a bit seriously, England’s claim is a colonial one, a legacy from a bygone era. They will inevitably have to cede the islands.
Because “sail around the world and claim what you want” is fucking great if you’re playing Monopoly. Less great to sort out world affairs in a modern world.
But if the islands were empty before? Like there’s islands who have thousands of years of history of people living there. But then there’s also those who just doesn’t. Are they supposed to stay empty? All humans always bad, or something?
By all the same arguments that you could invoke to justify British colonization in the first place, assuming you’re not going for bullshit like “god gave our King that holy right”.
No one should colonise anything. But the difference between Argentina and The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (God save the King) is as vast as, well, the distance between London and any point in South America
They’ve belonged to them for over 200 years, I don’t see why they don’t.
Let’s recap islands history:
Deserted, no permanent population.
French set up a settlement.
English makes another, fight the French.
Spain buys French port, fights British.
Britain leaves.
Spain leaves.
Deserted, no permanent population.
Argentina sets up a settlement.
England comes back, fight them off.
Conclusion: “rightfully British”? The law seems to be whoever smacks the other in the teeth and takes it by force, so I suppose that’s accurate.
However, having had a settlement in the island, Argentina’s claim is as valid as the UKs, and they just got smacked in the teeth so my verdict is that Argentina takes over administrative control over the Islands up until such time as they meet again in a world cup.
Argentina didnt exist yet
Yes it did. Argentina’s “Venticinco de Mayo” revolution in 1810 made it independent, though a formal declaration happened only in 1816 (technically “the United provinces of the Rio del la Plata”, that’s being nitpicky).
🤔 Why did England come back? Are you saying Argentina won the war in the 1980s?
What no, I’m talking of the 1830s. The British came back and expelled the Argentinian settlement, and settled back in.
They came back because the Argentinians occupied it.
I see two different reasons for a claim for Argentina: that they settled when there was no permanent occupation, like the French and the British did originally, and that they inherited Spain’s claim (who purchased the French settlement) following their independence from Spain.
My post was mostly going for humour, but if we’re looking at it a bit seriously, England’s claim is a colonial one, a legacy from a bygone era. They will inevitably have to cede the islands.
Because “sail around the world and claim what you want” is fucking great if you’re playing Monopoly. Less great to sort out world affairs in a modern world.
But if the islands were empty before? Like there’s islands who have thousands of years of history of people living there. But then there’s also those who just doesn’t. Are they supposed to stay empty? All humans always bad, or something?
There weren’t empty at the time of the British invasion.
There was an Argentinian settlement with a governor and a military garrison.
The British suck but not literally everything they do is an invasion. And there were other Europeans there when they first arrived, not Argentinians.
Both Spain and France and UK each have stronger claims than Argentina.
No garrison.
There weren’t “people” in the New World, so colonizing it was totally cool /s
You have to be one of the dumbest people I’ve ever interacted with on this platform, and that’s genuinely saying something.
You’re completely unable to make a coherent case for your beliefs, and all your arguments basically amount to “it just is”
Good luck with life, I guess.
OK so now YOU’RE equating humans to literally just birds and plants
Eh, nobody else was using them for anything.
Thatcher’s dead and buried, defending British imperialism isn’t going to get her to sleep with you
You’ve still not explained why Argentina should be allowed to colonise it and Britain shouldnt.
By all the same arguments that you could invoke to justify British colonization in the first place, assuming you’re not going for bullshit like “god gave our King that holy right”.
No one should colonise anything. But the difference between Argentina and The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (God save the King) is as vast as, well, the distance between London and any point in South America