To who, the French?! They’re the only ones who settled there before the British (beating them by a whopping 1 year), and they left again two years after they showed up. (And I say “settled there,” by the way, because if we went by who discovered it then the only people the British could return it to would be themselves.)
I mean the UK won’t return Gilbraltar to Spain who were in the EU with them they won’t obviously return the falklands.
“Return the Falklands”
… do you know the history of the Falklands? At all?
I’d like to see the UK also defending the “vote of the people” if Ireland voted to leave the UK
Ireland literally did, almost a hundred years ago. North Ireland voted to stay. There was a legally binding Scottish referendum on independence a few years back that the UK pledged to abide by. Are you shitting me?
Well the all island vote wasn’t the source of change, a war unfortunately had to follow.
And point of clarification - Ireland didn’t “leave the UK” - the British were forced to withdraw from 26 of the 32 counties of Ireland.
“NI” was carved out of the island by Britain holding on to as much industrialised land as they could, with as big a majority of British settlers vs native Irish.
Okay but these days when someone says colonialism, they typically mean the colonisation of already inhabited lands and the subjugation of natives. It’s a pretty loaded word these days.
The original commenter has slightly missed the point that there were no previous inhabitants, in my opinion.
If you think the Falklands should be part of Argentina, logically Hawaii should be part of Kiribati. Alaska should be Russian/Canadian, etc etc. If you think about it for more than a minute it becomes clear that geographical location is not the only factor or even the most important one.
You guys can take Justin Bieber and Pierre Polivre. We don’t want them. I’m sure we can find some remote shed to lock Palin away in while you look after those two.
geographical location is not the only factor or even the most important one
I’m pretty sure that if another country took over Hawaii, or the Catalina Islands off the coast of California, especially just for being able to put a marker down on future oil reserves, that the US would not be ok with that claim.
Even if your bullshit wasn’t bullshit, theres another huge difference you are ignoring - the US is capable of doing something about it, Argentina is not.
the US is capable of doing something about it, Argentina is not.
Well, they did try, and failed, but it was costly for both sides, so it wasn’t a hard one-sided affair.
Besides, that’s not the point I’m trying to make, and not relevant to this discussion. The point of legal ownership by “first rights”, and not “might makes right”, is what I’m speaking towards.
The guy might be a nutjob but I don’t think he’s talking about getting them back through war, Argentina has next to no military.
Having colonies in the year 2023 is ridiculous though, I don’t know why so many comments act like Britain is in the right here in any way whatsoever.
Removed by mod
[insert obama awarding obama meme here]
I mean the UK won’t return Gilbraltar to Spain who were in the EU with them they won’t obviously return the falklands.
I’d like to see the UK also defending the “vote of the people” if Ireland voted to leave the UK
To who, the French?! They’re the only ones who settled there before the British (beating them by a whopping 1 year), and they left again two years after they showed up. (And I say “settled there,” by the way, because if we went by who discovered it then the only people the British could return it to would be themselves.)
They claim ownership via Spain’s ownership, when Argentina won their independence from Spain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute
“Return the Falklands”
… do you know the history of the Falklands? At all?
Ireland literally did, almost a hundred years ago. North Ireland voted to stay. There was a legally binding Scottish referendum on independence a few years back that the UK pledged to abide by. Are you shitting me?
You talk like it’s a done deal and recent talks about a referendum to revisit never existed.
I… what?
No, I talk about it like it was literally a “vote of the people” which the UK pledged to abide by, which is what is being discussed.
He literally did not do that
Scotland had a vote, a legitimate one. Ireland, as in the Republic, isn’t part of the UK.
How can the Falklands be returned? Stop talking about this as if you know anything.
They literally did. Ireland became its own country 100 years ago. NI wanted to stay with the UK
Well the all island vote wasn’t the source of change, a war unfortunately had to follow.
And point of clarification - Ireland didn’t “leave the UK” - the British were forced to withdraw from 26 of the 32 counties of Ireland.
“NI” was carved out of the island by Britain holding on to as much industrialised land as they could, with as big a majority of British settlers vs native Irish.
… what?
do you want a cookie?
Since when were the Falklands an example of colonialism? Nobody lived there until the Europeans showed up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute
deleted by creator
That’s why I was careful to choose the word “colonialism” (which is what the comment I replied to was implying) instead of just “colony.”
My point was the original commenter never said it was an example of colonialism.
The original commenter wrote:
If you can’t see how that heavily implies colonialism, I don’t know what more to tell you.
Okay but these days when someone says colonialism, they typically mean the colonisation of already inhabited lands and the subjugation of natives. It’s a pretty loaded word these days.
The original commenter has slightly missed the point that there were no previous inhabitants, in my opinion.
If you think the Falklands should be part of Argentina, logically Hawaii should be part of Kiribati. Alaska should be Russian/Canadian, etc etc. If you think about it for more than a minute it becomes clear that geographical location is not the only factor or even the most important one.
Wait, can we give Sarah Palin to Canada? Seems like a fair trade to me.
You guys can take Justin Bieber and Pierre Polivre. We don’t want them. I’m sure we can find some remote shed to lock Palin away in while you look after those two.
I’m pretty sure that if another country took over Hawaii, or the Catalina Islands off the coast of California, especially just for being able to put a marker down on future oil reserves, that the US would not be ok with that claim.
Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute .
Even if your bullshit wasn’t bullshit, theres another huge difference you are ignoring - the US is capable of doing something about it, Argentina is not.
Well, they did try, and failed, but it was costly for both sides, so it wasn’t a hard one-sided affair.
Besides, that’s not the point I’m trying to make, and not relevant to this discussion. The point of legal ownership by “first rights”, and not “might makes right”, is what I’m speaking towards.
Cool, so since Britain has held the islands longer than Argentina has existed you consider the matter settled?
No. Think Argentina has the strongest claim based on previous ownership from Spain, and being the nearest nation to the islands.
But the first settlement there was french, so you’re wrong.
They left though, and then Spain was there.
Agreed about owning colonies. But that’s not what this is.
Because the population of the Falklands (that we installed there) want to remain part of Britain for whatever stupid reason.
No one else was there. Why would they want to be part of anything else?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute