Argentina and The Falklands



Argentina were originally going to invade the Beagle Islands. The Pope, however, became involved diplomatically. The junta thought better of it, thinking the population would lynch them if they defied the Vatican. That's when they set their sights on the Falklands.

The Chileans have a lot of time for British visitors because they feared Galtieri would eventually invade the Beagle Islands when the Vatican had other issues to deal with.

Uruguayans, roo, as they were convinced Argentina were going to cross the River Plate and annex them. Bobby Robson even wrote about it in his first book as England manager, So Near Yet So Far.
 
the falkland islanders want to remain british

the argentinians want the falklands more than the british

therefore democracy rules and the wishes of the falkland islanders are upheld

it's as simple as that really
Argentina were originally going to invade the Beagle Islands. The Pope, however, became involved diplomatically. The junta thought better of it, thinking the population would lynch them if they defied the Vatican. That's when they set their sights on the Falklands.

The Chileans have a lot of time for British visitors because they feared Galtieri would eventually invade the Beagle Islands when the Vatican had other issues to deal with.

Uruguayans, roo, as they were convinced Argentina were going to cross the River Plate and annex them. Bobby Robson even wrote about it in his first book as England manager, So Near Yet So Far.
agree with all of this especially around Chile who helped us during the war.

we knew when the argies were taking off and we were helped to sus out their spanish codes

if things went bad like the loss of invincible we would have had the use of Chilean runnways for more effective jets than carrier based harriers

perhaps even Buenos Aires could have been given a bit of a nawty nawty night

they were lucky to lose the war the way they did

they'd lose again in the future.
 
Last edited:

RedFlag1308

Winger
Don’t see the problem with giving the Malvinas to Argentina. Now all EU immigration is banned we could bring ever single person from there back to the motherland and still cut immigration figures eh. Plus they will be white. Unless of course it is actually about oil reserves of course ? Sovereignty eh.
 

Mainze

Striker
Don’t see the problem with giving the Malvinas to Argentina. Now all EU immigration is banned we could bring ever single person from there back to the motherland and still cut immigration figures eh. Plus they will be white. Unless of course it is actually about oil reserves of course ? Sovereignty eh.

Most people had no issues with immigration until your party's hero decided to fuck it all up in 2004. It was the white migration that sealed the Brexit.
 
Last edited:
Ceuta is a better example
Both good examples. A better example would be for the Argentinians to give up their country to indigenous peoples. Mad Cyril gives you what it says on the tin anyway :lol:
no idea mate. Hopefully the same time we give northern Ireland back to the Irish.
:lol: :lol::lol:
Don’t see the problem with giving the Malvinas to Argentina. Now all EU immigration is banned we could bring ever single person from there back to the motherland and still cut immigration figures eh. Plus they will be white. Unless of course it is actually about oil reserves of course ? Sovereignty eh.
Melt :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Both good examples. A better example would be for the Argentinians to give up their country to indigenous peoples. Mad Cyril gives you what it says on the tin anyway :lol:
I dont think it's a coincidence that its the @mad cyril , @bagpuss and @wicketkeeper types on this forum that are always so critical of the uk and its allies but other countries can do no wrong.

Imagine thinking justifiable for Argentina to militarily force the Falklands to become Argentinians
 
I dont think it's a coincidence that its the @mad cyril , @bagpuss and @wicketkeeper types on this forum that are always so critical of the uk and its allies but other countries can do no wrong.

Imagine thinking justifiable for Argentina to militarily force the Falklands to become Argentinians
I just don't get the logic of some people's opinions. How should we define who should have sovereignty of anywhere in a global sense?

Should sovereignty depend on the wishes of the people living there? Self determination is a powerful argument. As a nation we don't hold any place against its will. Falklands, Gibraltar and Northern Ireland currently chose to be British. Other people don't have this choice. The Catalans are not given a choice and States in the USA don't have a mechanism for leaving.

Should sovereignty be determined by who was there first? The Falklands were unoccupied before the colonial era. The first European said to have landed on the island was an Englishman Jack Strong in 1690. The east island was settled by France and the west by Britain many years before Argentina existed. In fact if we go by this rule Argentina should be given to its indigenous people.

Should sovereignty depend on proximity? This isn't much of an argument when both sides of the argument are a result of European colonialism as is all of the Americas. I would be ok for the European settlers on the Falklands to give up sovereignty as long as all the other governments of the Americas did the same. Russia could also give up all of its Asian territory.

The only claim Argentina has to the Islands is that its European population inherited the South Atlantic territory granted by the Pope in the 15th century. They can fuck off.
 

Top