The falklands are british or belong to Argentina?

Well let's see, a group of islands that were literally never owned by Argentina and only briefly owned by Spain for a few years, inhabited by a bunch of beady-eyed Anglos who speak English and want to remain a part of the UK.

Wow, this is such a difficult international problem with good arguments for both sides...

Is this fucking sarcasm? The Falklands are hundreds of miles off the Argentine coast with virtually no natural resources other than fish.
They think that because the Falklands look kinda close to Argentina on a map that it's theirs. That's literally it. Don't expect logic from a bunch of pissed off spics who are butthurt that they've gotten their asses kicked by all of their neighbors.

But if the people who live there want to stay british. Then its fucking self determination.

Not him, but fish are fucking important. Cod wars, anyone?

Now you say it like that I realise I was completely wrong and never had any reason to support the other side. You have amazed me with your groundbreaking and incredibly accurate analysis of what turned out to be such a nonsense problem. Thank you very much for this wonderful post

I found the Argentinian.

International waters are after 12 miles. Falklands are hundreds of miles away, not in "Argentinian territorial waters.

>it is purely about money and influence
I'd say that's far more true for Argentina.

>lose a war to an enemy who has to sail literally around half the world to get to you
>think you have rights to anything

Fine im gonna pay for 20 Africans to move to an Island off the cost of America, make them claim to want to be part of the free democratic country and claim all natural resources to be my sovereign property. Self determination is surely the solution to geopolitical problems

>which they obviously only do to extend their world influence and to claim the natural resources that are present in the oceans
So... entirely valid reasons? Do you even realpolitik, or do you think countries operate on hurt feefees?

so then what would you say determines geopolitical rights to an area?

first settlers? Falklands are still British, Argentina now belongs to the various tribes that used to own it
Proximity? Patagonia is now Chilean

rightful Serbian clay

Yes, if you move 20 Africans to an uninhabited island and they stay there for 300 years, then yes, they get to decide which country they want to be a part of.

There have never even been Hispanics on the Falklands. They were owned by France before being ceded to Spain for years, and were given over to the British one year later.

They are hundreds of miles away from Argentine territorial waters you stupid spic. They belong to the United Kingdom, they are inhabited by British people, and they want to remain a part of Britain.

You fought a war against a people at the perigee of their empire, who had to sail halfway across the world to fight you, and STILL got your ass kicked and eternally BTFO.

Shut the fuck up and stop acting like you ever had any kind of a right to the islands.

No not really. The french came first, and coexisted with a later english settlement until they ceded the island to Spain. Later when the province of Rio de la Plata (Argentina) declared its independence it claimed the islands and settled them, until an american ship found they suffered famine and the islands were evacuated.
At that point england decided to come from nowhere and claim the island for themselves. The Argentinian government protested but it had more pressing issues at the time (civil war).

> They were owned by France before being ceded to Spain for years
for 6 years*

And during that time the colony was still mostly a bunch of Frenchmen. And by "a bunch" I mean like two dozen.

Is that what they teach you in school, Jorge?

Irish actually, Britain doesnt give a flying fuck about the population of the Falklands, they are jut physically incapable of accepted its no longer the 19th century and they are longer have the biggest empire in the world. Just accept that it is no longer acceptable for Britain to have international territorial holdings and fuck off to your shit irrelevant island.

Look at a map. It's in Argentinian waters

Sopa de macaco, una delicia.

Self Determination bro, as soon as the falklands vote to be part of Argentina.

ah that explains, still eternally mad over the fact you don't even own your entire island?

or maybe you're still blaming the english for your inability to grow potatoes

>International waters are after 12 miles
Stop being pedantic.
>The term "territorial waters" is also sometimes used informally to refer to any area of water over which a state has jurisdiction, including internal waters, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and potentially the continental shelf.
>An exclusive economic zone extends from the outer limit of the territorial sea to a maximum of 200 nautical miles (370.4 km; 230.2 mi) from the territorial sea baseline, thus it includes the contiguous zone.[3] A coastal nation has control of all economic resources within its exclusive economic zone, including fishing, mining, oil exploration, and any pollution of those resources.

I know that las malvinas shouldnt belong to a former colonial overlord halfway around the world, that much is for certain

and the falklands are squarely within british territorial waters

what's the problem here?

I'm not even claiming the islands belong to us, I'm just pointing out that what you said was objectively wrong you retard.
Go read about the islands history and tell me I'm wrong.

alrighty then
every new world nation packs up its stuff and goes back to europe leaving the lands in charge of the original people

seriously colonial nations arguing about the right to territory is hilarious

Yes first hand knowledge of the unique cunty nature of the British and their gerrymandering to create ""Democratic Support"" do inform my opinion on this subject, you are absolutely correct

>creating democratic support
alright tell me how exactly did the british "manufacture" a full on 97% support rate for staying within the british empire?

>colonial overlord
The residents think of themselves as British and want to remain being under the crown. It's not like there's an oppressed indigenous population that's dying to overthrow an oppressive colonial regime; it's just British people who want to stay part of the British government.

Face it, your country was in the wrong when they tried to forcibly take land from islands that didn't want to be under your domain.

I mean just look at a map, out your finger on London, do you see the islands anywhere near there? No? Ohh jeez maybe they dont in fact have a legitimate reason to islands halfway around the world

By planting settlers there to legitimise future support for their colonial ways

British have the support of the people living there and have the ability to protect the territory militarily

meanwhile Argentina can't even protect its own capitol from looting

The oppressed people are the people of Argentina who are being denied access to their rightful natural resources.

>legitimate reason
British citizens settled an uninhabited island and still consider themselves British. The vast majority of the Falklands want to be under British rule. As far as "legitimate reasons" go, British control of the Falklands is about as clear as it gets.

Yes the west has historically unsettled weaker countries to allow them to be exploited, thanks for pointing that out

So, you want access to the islands, don't care how the inhabitants feel about it, and are willing to deny them their rights to enforce hegemony you want to create?

And you're acting like the British are terrible colonial overlords?

might makes right
course you won't get that because the only mighty thing about the irish is their smell

Yeah fine, keep the island and revoke all claims to surrounding waters while removing all military bases that are there to promote British influence in the area, alternatively give the Islanders the millions it costs the british to control the islands and they will fuck off to greener pastures.

Why doesn't the argentinian government secretly organize a mass migration to the islands so that the majority of the population votes to be argentinian?

Yes historical grievances being overturned is painful and hurts modern inhabitants, but the ones who did the harm were the colonialists in the first place. Its like complaining that having to give back the tv you stole will prevent you from watching the footy.

because even argentinians wouldn't vote to be a part of argentina

so you agree that all argentinians should pack up their stuff and leave for spain?

PIRATEEEEEEEEE

If might makes right is your only argument I think its fairly obvious who won

>colonialists
The British weren't colonialists. The islands were literally uninhabited when they settled it. They didn't displace anyone or enforce subjection of a native population. People just moved to empty land.

>Its like complaining that having to give back the tv you stole
There's literally no similarity there. The British didn't steal anything. It was their island and they inhabited it. What you're doing is demanding a neighbor give you a TV they built because you share a wall and you feel entitled to it.

yeh the british in 1982

The islands were occupied ilegally to be fair. It's not like it was unclaimed territory.

No Argentinians have mixed with the locla peoples and creaed a unique culture, 200 hundred years ago this would have been a fine solution but sadly to much time has passed and to much damage has been done for it to be solved in that manner

so put a DNA test
anyone with more than 50% spanish DNA gets deported
like you said, gotta be hard on the modern people

I dont really but this muh genetics argument for countries and think they are far more about unique culture/shared experiences.

>No Argentinians have mixed with the locla peoples

The british were colonialists, they created a colony on the Falkland islands, whether the islands were inhabited or not doesnt prevent it from being a colony

That's not entirely accurate. At the time the British took final control of the islands, they were a legal mess, and a bunch of factors with various claims. Part of the reason for the problem was the lack of inhabitation, which meant anyone could claim them. The British were just the first ones to establish a permanent presence.

It really wasn't a different situation than what happens when any country's borders are being being decided upon. If you're going to say the Falklands were occupied illegally, then lots of modern borders are illegal, too.

They are unironically British.

I mean the British established a colony there to promote their territorial claim, the fact that this is still being used hundreds of years later proves its effectiveness

>The Falklands are Argentinian and belong to the United Kingdom.

The only correct answer.

fpbp

They belong to the Penguins.

By the principle of self-determination the people of the Falklands are part of the United Kingdom, and the Falklands belongs to the people who live there.

If Argentina really wants those islands then they need to flood it with Argentine settlers who will vote to become part of Argentina.

I think he meant to say
>No. Argentinians have mixed with the local peoples

This desu, thanks for pointing that out friend

England have no reason to give it up.
Argentina have no legitimate claims. They tried conquest and failed. Stop being so stupid.

British
Because they won

At this point the islands belong to whoever can hold them. If argentina wants them so bad come get em

All in due time.

reminder that without Chile's help you would have pathetically lost

Reminder that Argentina got BTFO by a tiny island halfway around the world.

Britain keeps 8 aircraft on the Falklands. They would easily crush the entire Argentinian air force.