Argentina you have no rightful claim to the land if you wish to try again
We have a handful of typhoon fighter jets on the falklands that will turn your obsolete airforce into dust
We have nuclear submarines armed with tomahawk cruise missiles that can hit any target in Argentina with pin point accuracy
We have new destroyers that can hit your pathetic french made exocets out of the sky
So please give us an excuse even though like i said i would rather we be friends
*Edit i suggest you do it quick before we get our new aircraft carriers and the new F-35 Lightening cause when we get those babies you dont stand a fucking chance!
Last edited by Combooticus; 2013-01-04 at 10:41 AM.
The Suez Canal was in Egypt and was owned by an Egyptian company that the government of Egypt nationalised. The Falklands are part of British territory. Argentina has no jurisdiction whatsoever.I don't see why Argentina shouldn't be able to take control of them like Egypt did with the Suez canal.
President of Argentina is simply saber rattling to draw attention away from its economic problems.
The Falkland isle, untill they have had the referendum will remain A British isle, it is down to the people to choose.
The local population should decide who they wish to be affiliated too.
Also Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner is clearly a name with no Spanish colonial origins and is surely from one of the indigenous peoples of Argentina.....
It just so happens that the islands did not have indigenous inhabitants, but instead have 2,841 people who came from Britain. That's a whopping 0.26 Brits per square kilometer of the land, and much much less per square kilometer of the sea.
It's much like Britain keeping a naval base right next to Argentina in the south Pacific; except it's not a naval base, but a bunch of civilians that are useful as an excuse to keep economic rights over everything that's there.
I don't care who these islands belong to. I'm just pointing out that the reason commonly stated for them being British - that the islanders vote for remaining in Britain - is naive and extremely tenuous.
Of course the handful of British people, that the British put there, are going to vote to remain part of Britain. LoL!
Last edited by Elodeon; 2013-01-04 at 10:45 AM.
I notice you have zero counterargument.Of course, according to Britain.
This is utterly ridiculous. Argentinians didn't live in Falklands. The Falklands were part of the British Empire and remains a British Overseas Territory. Argentina was part of the Spanish Empire. This has got to be the most intellectually bankrupt and dishonest sorry excuse for a land claim that I've ever heard.The Argentinian claim comes from a precedent set in the 20th century, where empires have been dismantled, and land and resources that used to belong to empires came under control of people living there.
Doesn't change the fact that your Argentinian claim is a load of hogwash with no legitimate legal or historical basis. You don't get to write your own version of international law to suit your own needs.Hah! In this case, it goes to the state with the better navy. That's Britain.
But there isn't.
The argument here is, what population is significant enough to make a claim.
Would you still maintain that who lives in the Falklands is significant, if the population was a single person stationed there?
Would you still argue that the Falkland islands are British, if there was literally no person at all living there?
If you would, then why don't we see arguments based on that, instead of stupid claims about the right to self-determination, when the population is a measly 2,841, in an area half the size of Vermont?
Those colonies are all places where there was an existing indigenous population. Plenty of islands around the world are still held by whatever country happened to settle them.The Argentinian claim comes from a precedent set in the 20th century, where empires have been dismantled, and land and resources that used to belong to empires came under control of people living there. Not just Argentina, but pretty much everyone in South America would like the islands to be part of some nation in South America, because that's where they are. The islands remaining part of Britain is a relic of the British Empire.
So does that mean Norway should be allowed to invade Swedish Lappland because the population density there is low? (Not counting the towns of Kiruna, Gällivare, Jokkmokk and Arjeplog the population density is approximately 0.58 inhabitans per km^2)It just so happens that the islands did not have indigenous inhabitants, but instead have 2,841 people who came from Britain. That's a whopping 0.26 Brits per square kilometer of the land, and much much less per square kilometer of the sea.
I am the Kwisatz Haderach
Also it takes extraordinary selective blindness to equate "2,841" to "0" when your whole argument depends upon "people who live there".