• force@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Argentinian leaders use nationalism as a distraction for their economic woes – it’s why the Falkland war started in the first place, the president wanted something to make citizens focus on other than the declining state of the country, and grabbing some land from a greater power to get a bunch of glory seemed like a great option, especially considering they didn’t think the UK would actually retaliate or even care. The reason they went for it is they thought the British didn’t give a damn about the Falklands, seeing as how they constantly denied giving the island economic support. Oh boy, were they wrong.

    Because of the war, Argentinians now see not having the Falkland islands as a detriment to their national pride, they think it’s soveirgn Argentinian territory… even though everyone living on the island has always been and still is almost entirely Anglo-Franco-descendent, and not once did Argentina actually have claim to the islands until recently in history…

    • Treczoks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      Argentinian leaders use nationalism as a distraction for their economic woes

      Tale as old as time…

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

      even though everyone living on the island has always been and still is almost entirely Anglo-Franco-descendent, and not once did Argentina actually have claim to the islands until recently in history

      That’s not true. They feel that they inherited the islands fair and square from Spain when they won their independence from Spain, who were on the islands before anyone else. The UN agrees, and officially asked Great Britain to give the islands back to Argentina.

      • Powerpoint@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        Another reply here covers this well…

        "The link literally shows Argentina made the claim after the British.

        The island has voted numerous times they prefer to remain part of Britain.

        Twice the Argentine government has declined the UK’s offer to have the matter of sovereignty heard by the International Court of Justice.

        Instead they choose to START a war over it.

        Just stop already. For some reason this topic is a brain worm for Argentinians. You all go batshit over it and lose all reason and perspective."

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

          "The link literally shows Argentina made the claim after the British.

          The Spanards lay a claim before that, and Argentina claims them based on inheriting them when they won their independence from Spain.

          The island has voted numerous times they prefer to remain part of Britain.

          Has nothing to do with the rights of the countries. Russia took over land from Ukraine, put people in there, and then held an election where the people stated they want to be with Russia. Doesn’t make that vote right or legal.

          Twice the Argentine government has declined the UK’s offer to have the matter of sovereignty heard by the International Court of Justice.

          [Citation Required]

          Also, the UN has made a declaration that Great Britain should negotiate return the islands to Argentina.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_502

          Instead they choose to START a war over it.

          I ain’t defending this one, it was done for Argentinian political b.s. reasons. But it doesn’t mean that the clain is b.s., just the stupid war they started.

          But having said that, how long would any nation on this Earth wait to get land back that they believed are theirs? If China took Hawaii or the Catalina Islands off the coast of California, would the US just wait indefinately to resolve the issue diplomatically?

          • Womble@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            United Nations Security Council Resolution 502 was a resolution adopted by the United Nations Security Council on 3 April 1982. After expressing its concern at the invasion of the Falkland Islands by the armed forces of Argentina, the council demanded an immediate cessation of hostilities between Argentina and the United Kingdom and a complete withdrawal by Argentine forces. The council also called on the governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom to seek a diplomatic solution to the situation and refrain from further military action.

            The resolution by the British representative, Ambassador Sir Anthony Parsons,[1] was adopted by 10 votes in favour (France, United Kingdom, United States, Zaire, Guyana, Ireland, Japan, Jordan, Togo and Uganda) to 1 against (Panama) with four abstentions (China, Poland, Spain and the Soviet Union).[2]

            Resolution 502 was in the United Kingdom’s favour by giving it the option to invoke Article 51 of the United Nations Charter and to claim the right of self-defence. It was supported by members of the Commonwealth and by the European Economic Community, which later imposed sanctions on Argentina.

            Do you not realise that you linked to a resolution that says pretty much exactly the opposite of what you said? That was a resolution put forward by the UK which demands Argentina leave the Falkands and was passed with only Panama voting against it

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

              Do you not realise that you linked to a resolution that says pretty much exactly the opposite of what you said?

              I do, and as I’ve already stated, I was against the fighting.

              Having said that, stopping a fight vote is not the same thing as voting on who owns a piece of land.

              That same article talks about negotiations that should be had instead…

              The council also called on the governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom to seek a diplomatic solution to the situation and refrain from further military action.

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

                Yes, it was a “fuck off and then we’ll talk” demand. As Argentina had to be kicked out by force they didn’t get to negotiate.