Who should have control of the Falklands?
The UK
90.8% (177)
90.8% (177)
Argentina
7.7% (15)
7.7% (15)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: The Falklands - Who should it belong to?

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Before I start, I'll admit this: I don't know much relating to the Falklands, which is 1 of the reasons I've created this thread.

Another of those reasons is an article a friend linked on Facebook. In summary, Argentina seem to think they'll control the Falklands within 20 years.

This baffles me, as I can't seem to understand why the Argentines seem to think they have the right to rule over that land. Having a quick look at wikipedia reveals that the British have had control of the Falklands for about 180 years now.

Personally, I don't think proximity to them should give them rights over the land.

Can someone please enlighten me as to why the Argentines seem to think it's theirs? Also, do you think that the Argentines should have control over it? (Which would force the population to relocate).

Edit:

After having read the wikipedia entry in a bit more detail, it seems that Argentina seems to believe that the British illegally took control of the islands in 1833, expelling the Argentine residents and preventing them from resettling.

The current residents of the Falklands are wanting to remain British, but Argentina seems to think that their opinion doesn't matter and that they should be under Argentine rule anyway.

So, are the Argentines right in thinking they should rule the island? Or should the Falklanders opinions be taken into account and have them remain British?

1. Argentina only had colonies the islands for less than 3 years. A fair amount of that time was during the occupation during the last war.

2. Several other nations have held the Falklands for similar amount of time, including the US, France, and Spain before 1833.

3. It wasn't even the current Argentinian government, it was several predecessors, such as the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata.

4. There was no native population on the island before the French discovered it, barring the penguins.

5. Argentina only wants the islands because of potential oil reserves (although they appear to far less than first estimated) and the VAST fishing grounds given to who ever controls the island.

6. The islanders want to remain British. It is doubtable they would get the same amount of support, or if they would even allowed to stay on the island.

It just makes logical sense for it to remain British.

British definitely. The Argentinians have a fairly weak claim to begin with and considering the only people on the island are tea drinking, crumpet eating, queen loving Brits I think the British should be able to keep the islands.

The Argentinian claim barely holds together as it is, and if that wasn't enough the Falklanders have made it clear time and time again (and will most likely do so again in their referendum in March) that they want to stay British. They live there, it should be their decision.

Pretty much what the above said. The residents want to be British, so Argentina can suck an elf. It really is that simple. This isn't like the China/Japan conflict over Senkaku, where there are no residents to voice their opinions. It's pretty easily sorted out.

Speaking as an Argentine, the opinion of my people is based on anti-British sentiment. Britain and Argentina do not get along culturally. They tried to invade us twice, we repelled them, they took Chile's side on our almost-border-war, we (unofficially) sided with the Germans and Italians in WWI and WWII, and they did take those islands by force (we also got in a war with them over that). In my country, the British have a terrible reputation (especially in educated/cultured circles) as imperialistic Napoleon-like mad conquerors.

I am not going to defend the British, I think they got those reputations for a reason, but I also don't think it's fair at all to forcibly convert or exile the currently British inhabitants of the islands. What I'd advocate for is to allow Argentine settlements on the islands. Basically, I advocate for sharing the islands and their resources. Let both nations inhabit and rule over them, and solve shit with diplomacy, the way intelligent adults do.

Darken12:
Speaking as an Argentine, the opinion of my people is based on anti-British sentiment. Britain and Argentina do not get along culturally. They tried to invade us twice, we repelled them, they took Chile's side on our almost-border-war, we (unofficially) sided with the Germans and Italians in WWI and WWII, and they did take those islands by force (we also got in a war with them over that). In my country, the British have a terrible reputation (especially in educated/cultured circles) as imperialistic Napoleon-like mad conquerors.

I am not going to defend the British, I think they got those reputations for a reason, but I also don't think it's fair at all to forcibly convert or exile the currently British inhabitants of the islands. What I'd advocate for is to allow Argentine settlements on the islands. Basically, I advocate for sharing the islands and their resources. Let both nations inhabit and rule over them, and solve shit with diplomacy, the way intelligent adults do.

Did you know that the only two times Argentine has held the Falklands was after invading it while under British rule? If anything we should be opening up discussions with France and Spain on whether they want splits.

AdMech:
Did you know that the only two times Argentine has held the Falklands was after invading it while under British rule? If anything we should be opening up discussions with France and Spain on whether they want splits.

Argentina didn't invade the Falklands in the 1800s. From the Wikipedia article:

"Spain acquired the French colony in 1767, and placed it under a governor subordinate to the Buenos Aires colonial administration."

When we gained independence from Spain, we gained the rights to the islands legitimately.

Captcha: history repeats itself. Sometimes you're scary, Captcha.

Probably the UK just because there don't seem to have been any other native residents at any point, just military garrisons up until the origin of the current British settlement. That said, if it came down to it I'd say give it to Argentina and try and get compensation for them getting it rather than get into a war over some oil and a handful of islanders.

As The Escapist's other resident Argentine I'd like to point out a few things. And I'm not quoting Wikipedia.

The islands were discovered in 1520 by Magellan and charted as Spanish. They were briefly colonized by French, Dutch and British settlements afterwards. However, they figure as Spanish in 1713's Peace of Utrecht. Spanish governors took regular control of the islands from 1774 to 1811. During the 1820's the country held a number of, shall we say, demonstrative acts wherein it claimed to inherit the islands off Spain (the country declared its freedom in the meantime from Spain, by the way). England recognized Argentina's claim in Tratado de Amistad, Comercio y Navegación, 1825, and the ownership was made official in a 1829 decree. The islands then proceeded to get invaded by Britain in 1833.

So as history puts it, the claim is valid.
It is also A STUPID FUCKING WASTE OF TIME. The islands' worth is purely symbolic, a topic politicians board on and off to play the population for their benefit (much like 9/11 popping up in a political speech, if you will). The military dictatorship of 76-83 used them as an excuse to divert the citizens' attention from the ongoing state terrorism towards something foreign and far, far away (the strategic equivalent of telling someone "Hey, look behind you!" then proceeding to escape). Mark my words, I don't give a fuck about those islands. Sure, there's a valid historical claim to owning them, and I hate British piracy as much as the Scots and the Irish, but there's nothing to be gained from them and it seems like a waste of resources considering the country's shitty economical, political and social situation.

You know what, good for the Falklanders. At least they cash in euros. We have fucking pesos worth shit. You want to travel, you have to exchange for dollars at a dismal rate. You end up exchanging currencies in shadowy places like you're dealing drugs or something.

There is only one peaceful solution to this problem.

The islands should go to Marshal Faulk. Hell, his first name is already a title!

Johnny Novgorod:
You know what, good for the Falklanders. At least they cash in euros. We have fucking pesos worth shit. You want to travel, you have to exchange for dollars at a dismal rate. You end up exchanging currencies in shadowy places like you're dealing drugs or something.

They don't let us take dollars (or any other foreign currency) out of the country any longer, remember? They indisputably have it a lot better than us by sheer virtue of being citizens of a better country, so it's pretty obvious why they cling to Britain so (and why I support their desire to remain British). The alternative is horrifying, after all.

Johnny Novgorod:

So as history puts it, the claim is valid.

That's the thing, though, how could a British invasion have been classed as illegal before international laws were setup stating that such invasions are illegal? I'm assuming that without the UN there wouldn't have been many, if any, international laws regarding that sorta thing.

As such, I don't think that a country invading and taking over a place 180 years ago gives the nation that were invaded a valid claim to the land now.

Darken12:
What I'd advocate for is to allow Argentine settlements on the islands. Basically, I advocate for sharing the islands and their resources. Let both nations inhabit and rule over them, and solve shit with diplomacy, the way intelligent adults do.

Why? Argentina never held the Falklands beyond invading it in the 20th century. A prior nation that existed before modern Argentina did hold the island once before it was taken over by the British, but that nation no longer exists. It would be like Italy claiming half of the UK because the Romans once owned it.

So why should any Argentine settlements be allowed on the island? As stated the Argentine goverment has never held a legitimate claim on the island, they invaded it and lost the resulting war, and now they think they can just get it handed to them?

Argentina has no right to them, so why should the British have to make a compromise with them instead of simply saying "No, this island is ours, deal with it"? The islanders want to be British, end of story.

Argentine might as well sit and spin, because the right to self-determination isn't going anywhere. The Islanders want to be British, and so long as Argentine keeps treating them as if they aren't even there (going so far as to say that they were uninterested in talking with a "third party" recently) the Islanders are going to laugh at Argentine's claims.

frobalt:

As such, I don't think that a country invading and taking over a place 180 years ago gives the nation that were invaded a valid claim to the land now.

Especially since that the actual government who lost the islands to the British no longer exists, having been changed forms a few times since 1833.

Johnny Novgorod:
As The Escapist's other resident Argentine I'd like to point out a few things. And I'm not quoting Wikipedia.

The islands were discovered in 1520 by Magellan and charted as Spanish. They were briefly colonized by French, Dutch and British settlements afterwards. However, they figure as Spanish in 1713's Peace of Utrecht. Spanish governors took regular control of the islands from 1774 to 1811. During the 1820's the country held a number of, shall we say, demonstrative acts wherein it claimed to inherit the islands off Spain (the country declared its freedom in the meantime from Spain, by the way). England recognized Argentina's claim in Tratado de Amistad, Comercio y Navegación, 1825, and the ownership was made official in a 1829 decree. The islands then proceeded to get invaded by Britain in 1833.

So as history puts it, the claim is valid.
It is also A STUPID FUCKING WASTE OF TIME. The islands' worth is purely symbolic, a topic politicians board on and off to play the population for their benefit (much like 9/11 popping up in a political speech, if you will). The military dictatorship of 76-83 used them as an excuse to divert the citizens' attention from the ongoing state terrorism towards something foreign and far, far away (the strategic equivalent of telling someone "Hey, look behind you!" then proceeding to escape). Mark my words, I don't give a fuck about those islands. Sure, there's a valid historical claim to owning them, and I hate British piracy as much as the Scots and the Irish, but there's nothing to be gained from them and it seems like a waste of resources considering the country's shitty economical, political and social situation.

You know what, good for the Falklanders. At least they cash in euros. We have fucking pesos worth shit. You want to travel, you have to exchange for dollars at a dismal rate. You end up exchanging currencies in shadowy places like you're dealing drugs or something.

I'd quibble over some of the details, like the 1825 treaty didn't discuss what does or does not constitutes Argentinian territory one way or another and the 1829 deceleration was a unilateral one that was protested by the UK, but basically yeah.

The only thing I'd add is that Thatcher was sinking in the polls and she benefited quite well from warmongering rather than trying to seek a diplomatic solution, as both sides seemed to rush headlong into war with no hint of diplomatic recourse being a possibility.

Shaoken:
Why? Argentina never held the Falklands beyond invading it in the 20th century. A prior nation that existed before modern Argentina did hold the island once before it was taken over by the British, but that nation no longer exists. It would be like Italy claiming half of the UK because the Romans once owned it.

So why should any Argentine settlements be allowed on the island? As stated the Argentine goverment has never held a legitimate claim on the island, they invaded it and lost the resulting war, and now they think they can just get it handed to them?

Argentina has no right to them, so why should the British have to make a compromise with them instead of simply saying "No, this island is ours, deal with it"? The islanders want to be British, end of story.

The island was held by Argentina from 1816 (when Argentina gained independence and inherited sovereignty over the island from Spain) to 1833 (when it was taken by force by the British). We had settlements there, so we definitely do have a legitimate claim.

However, as my compatriot pointed out, the issue is largely moot. I was merely expressing what I think would be an equitable compromise, not what I think will actually happen. Argentina is never going to get even the slightest foothold on the islands.

I agree with the general sentiments of the thread - the Argentine claim to the islands and the "illegal" British invasion are shaky-at-best, and the resident population (which haven't exactly only been there for the last decade) want to be British, so the islands should be under British rule.

I wouldn't be surprised if this is yet another attempt to divert attention away from domestic politics, as that is historically why claims about "Las Malvinas" are made by the Argentine government - though it will be another excellent platform for low-polling politicians (like some Republican...congressmen, I think they were...last time) and "celebrities" desperate for a little more spotlight.

frobalt:

So, are the Argentines right in thinking they should rule the island? Or should the Falklanders opinions be taken into account and have them remain British?

The Argentinians are right, you pointed out yourself why Argentinians feel this way.

Also, what year is this? Is it the 1800's? No? Then I don't think that Britain has a right to claim Argentina anymore than they have a right to claim Hong Kong or India. Just because you control a place, doesn't make it justified.

Darken12:

Shaoken:
Why? Argentina never held the Falklands beyond invading it in the 20th century. A prior nation that existed before modern Argentina did hold the island once before it was taken over by the British, but that nation no longer exists. It would be like Italy claiming half of the UK because the Romans once owned it.

So why should any Argentine settlements be allowed on the island? As stated the Argentine goverment has never held a legitimate claim on the island, they invaded it and lost the resulting war, and now they think they can just get it handed to them?

Argentina has no right to them, so why should the British have to make a compromise with them instead of simply saying "No, this island is ours, deal with it"? The islanders want to be British, end of story.

The island was held by Argentina from 1816 (when Argentina gained independence and inherited sovereignty over the island from Spain) to 1833 (when it was taken by force by the British). We had settlements there, so we definitely do have a legitimate claim.

No you don't. Beyond the differences in government between 1833 and 2013, after 180 years whatever claim you had is now non-existant. It'd be like the French saying that they should have Canada or Vietnam back just because they once held them.

After such a ludiciriously long time, whatever claim you had is long since null and void because, duh, you haven't been living there for 180 years.

However, as my compatriot pointed out, the issue is largely moot. I was merely expressing what I think would be an equitable compromise, not what I think will actually happen.

How is your "compromise" equitable? It benifits only Argentina, rewards your government for warmonging, and infringes on the rights of the local inhabitants to want to remain apart of the same nation they've been with for decades longer than Argentina even had the islands to begin with.

Helmholtz Watson:

frobalt:

So, are the Argentines right in thinking they should rule the island? Or should the Falklanders opinions be taken into account and have them remain British?

The Argentinians are right, you pointed out yourself why Argentinians feel this way.

Also, what year is this? Is it the 1800's? No? Then I don't think that Britain has a right to claim Argentina anymore than they have a right to claim Hong Kong or India. Just because you control a place, doesn't make it justified.

The Brits aren't laying claim to Argentina but a group of islands that is somewhat off the coast of Argentina. A group of islands that is currently being inhabited by people that identify themselves as British.

The thread is more about whether the Argentines are right or not for believing they have rights over the group of islands. When I edited the thread, I just didn't remove my original intentions for the thread after finding out what they believe.

Helmholtz Watson:

frobalt:

So, are the Argentines right in thinking they should rule the island? Or should the Falklanders opinions be taken into account and have them remain British?

The Argentinians are right, you pointed out yourself why Argentinians feel this way.

Also, what year is this? Is it the 1800's? No? Then I don't think that Britain has a right to claim Argentina anymore than they have a right to claim Hong Kong or India. Just because you control a place, doesn't make it justified.

So what, fuck the inhabitants of the island who have lived there for decades (much longer than the Argentinan government's predecessors did) and what they want? Hand them and their homes over to someone who got control of the island without it's inhabitants permission (those poor penguins)? For what, some ludicirious notion of fairness?

At least with Hong Kong and India, those places had native inhabitants before the British arrived and when they left. The Falklands had nobody on them to begin with, had traded hands several times before hand, and now adays only have British people on them who want to remain British.

So tell me, how the fuck is Argentina in the right here? Just because they got given it by the Spanish who took it by force?

Shaoken:
No you don't. Beyond the differences in government between 1833 and 2013, after 180 years whatever claim you had is now non-existant. It'd be like the French saying that they should have Canada or Vietnam back just because they once held them.

After such a ludiciriously long time, whatever claim you had is long since null and void because, duh, you haven't been living there for 180 years.

Calm down. Stop taking it so personally, this is pure speculation and debating. As I've said before, the Falklands will remain safely British for a long time.

Firstly, if you think that claims expire, that is a perfectly valid reasoning but it's not what you said before. You said "you have no claim" not "your claim has long expired". There's a difference between both statements. I am not sure if claims of sovereignty expire if the territory in question doesn't declare independence (as has been the case with pretty much every example you've cited thus far) and has been keeping any other settlements from being formed by threat of force. After all, I'm quite sure Argentina could have easily had a settlement there for 100+ years too if the British hadn't forced them out.

How is your "compromise" equitable? It benifits only Argentina, rewards your government for warmonging, and infringes on the rights of the local inhabitants to want to remain apart of the same nation they've been with for decades longer than Argentina even had the islands to begin with.

Firstly, the British took the island by force. In 1833, they made the Argentine settlements to leave by force. If you think that Argentina being allowed to have settlements on the islands is rewarding warmongering, the same can be said of Britain. The message the Falklands are currently sending is "If you take territory by force from a weaker nation and manage to hold on to it long enough, you win! Fuck diplomacy, once their claims expire, it's yours!" I personally repudiate and disapprove both of the 1833 and 1982 invasions, precisely because I'm anti-war. After all, if we're going to point fingers, the British infringed on the rights of the local inhabitants first.

Finally, I'm not suggesting the British be forced to become Argentine, I'm theorising that it would be a compromise between both factions to let the Argentines establish settlements (far away from the British) and share the islands between both nations.

Shaoken:

So tell me, how the fuck is Argentina in the right here? Just because they got given it by the Spanish who took it by force?

No, because European colonization isn't a justification for having a piece of land that was acquired during a "dark time" in the UK's history.

As for the government taking the stance that self determination should be the deciding factor? That's hilarious because looking at history, it seems like they don't take that stance when it doesn't suit them[1]. So forgive me if I don't take their word for it that they genuinely care about the self determination of the islands.

frobalt:

The Brits aren't laying claim to Argentina but a group of islands that is somewhat off the coast of Argentina. A group of islands that is currently being inhabited by people that identify themselves as British.

I'm aware of that, see my previous comment about colonization not being a justification.

frobalt:

The thread is more about whether the Argentines are right or not for believing they have rights over the group of islands. When I edited the thread, I just didn't remove my original intentions for the thread after finding out what they believe.

Ok, well I stand by the Argentinians. The British used force to "acquire" the islands.

[1] That's not even including my own country's history with the UK.

Helmholtz Watson:

frobalt:

The thread is more about whether the Argentines are right or not for believing they have rights over the group of islands. When I edited the thread, I just didn't remove my original intentions for the thread after finding out what they believe.

Ok, well I stand by the Argentinians. The British used force to "acquire" the islands.

Why are you backing the Argentinians? Do you believe the Argentine's are right about their claim or do you just want to see Britain losing another colony?

Helmholtz Watson:
Snip

No offence, but you seem to have a habit of taking sides on issues where you don't have a clue about the problems. I remember you rather consistently going into threads about Northern Ireland and making statements that effectively boiled down to "Northern Ireland for the Irish! Death to British Imperialism!" and then proceeding to ignore any attempts to explain the complex issues that surround N.I.

On the topic of the Falklands: If the Islands have no native inhabitants to ask, then surely it makes sense to seek the opinion of the current inhabitants? Well they want to be British.

Your immediate associations with my nations territorial claims with colonialism is ringing alarm bells in my mind that you're simply seeing a European nation in the conflict and assuming they must be wrong because they're European. Ironically you then go on to support Argentinian colonialism simply because you're trying so desperately to distance yourself from European colonialism.

Helmholtz Watson:
Ok, well I stand by the Argentinians. The British used force to "acquire" the islands.

Much of the American West was acquired by force from Mexico- who should own that land? The people who live there, do their opinions matter, or is it just between Washington and the Mexican government?

As far as I'm concerned, Argentina lost any claim to those islands when they invaded. After that unpleasantness, the UK is never going to give them up (never gonna let them down) unless the Falklanders want to.

Helmholtz Watson:

Shaoken:

So tell me, how the fuck is Argentina in the right here? Just because they got given it by the Spanish who took it by force?

No, because European colonization isn't a justification for having a piece of land that was acquired during a "dark time" in the UK's history.

As for the government taking the stance that self determination should be the deciding factor? That's hilarious because looking at history, it seems like they don't take that stance when it doesn't suit them[1]. So forgive me if I don't take their word for it that they genuinely care about the self determination of the islands.

Well considering the fact that during the 60s the British negotiated with the Aregentina government (trying to get a better working relationship with South America) and were perfectly willing to just hand the islands over to them until word got out and the Falklanders were pissed, I'd say they do care when it gives them a PR nightmare.

frobalt:

The thread is more about whether the Argentines are right or not for believing they have rights over the group of islands. When I edited the thread, I just didn't remove my original intentions for the thread after finding out what they believe.

Ok, well I stand by the Argentinians. The British used force to "acquire" the islands.[/quote]

And? The Spanish used force to take their half from the French. Oh, and that is half, because the British have always owned apart of the islands. The Spanish even used force to "acquire" the British half before it was given back to stop a full-scale war from breaking out.

[1] That's not even including my own country's history with the UK.

i remember watching the invasion on tv at the time and finding out that there was exactly one individual who had argentine citizenship living on the falklands at the time.

regardless of what happened in 1800 the current population simply would like to remain british subjects which makes it case closed to me despite what politicians in argentina jump up and down screaming to distract from internal issues

As a general rule of thumb, if you were not only born on the Falklands but also fought the Nazis for control of it during World War II, then you should have the right to live there.

frobalt:

Why are you backing the Argentinians?

As I said, the British used force to take the land from the the Argentinians after they got the islands from Spain.

Lethos:

No offence, but you seem to have a habit of taking sides on issues where you don't have a clue about the problems.

No, what I was doing was going off of what I had been told by from classmates who were from Ireland and who were very pro-Ireland. If you recall those threads, you will remember that I came to realize that my friends had mislead me and I admitted that I was wrong about some of the things that I typed[1].

Lethos:
On the topic of the Falklands: If the Islands have no native inhabitants to ask, then surely it makes sense to seek the opinion of the current inhabitants? Well they want to be British.

It has already been pointed out by Darken12 that Argentina had a settlement there prior to the British and that they forced the Argentinians to leave. As for the opinions of the current inhabitants, I've already addressed how disingenuous the government seems to be about their claim to care about self determination. When it suits them they support the idea, but when they feel it doesn't, apparently they declare that they'll "resist Scottish independence with everything we've got".

Lethos:

Your immediate associations with my nations territorial claims with colonialism is ringing alarm bells in my mind that you're simply seeing a European nation in the conflict and assuming they must be wrong because they're European.

Not at all, I think your nation is wrong because I don't agree with their use of force and colonization. It's not because your nation is European. Case in point, in the issue of Cyprus, I fully support Greece and I feel that Turkey is completely in the wrong for their invasion of the Island. Heck, it seems that I am on the same side as Britain in regards to the issue of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. So no, I'm not acting out of some hatred or dislike for Europe.

BlackStar42:

Much of the American West was acquired by force from Mexico- who should own that land? The people who live there, do their opinions matter, or is it just between Washington and the Mexican government?

Why does Mexico get a say but Native Americans like the Hopi don't?

BlackStar42:

As far as I'm concerned, Argentina lost any claim to those islands when they invaded. After that unpleasantness, the UK is never going to give them up (never gonna let them down) unless the Falklanders want to.

Oh I agree that it doesn't seem likely that the UK is going to relinquish claim of the Islands, I think everybody in this thread realizes that.

[1] For example, I was wrong about the Protestant and Catholic demographics of North Ireland.

I have the distinct impression that this stuff is some nationalistic Argentinians and shameless moneygrubbers (natural resources) vs the entire rest of the world.

Isn't it a bit of a non-discussion in that sense?

Helmholtz Watson:

frobalt:

So, are the Argentines right in thinking they should rule the island? Or should the Falklanders opinions be taken into account and have them remain British?

The Argentinians are right, you pointed out yourself why Argentinians feel this way.

Also, what year is this? Is it the 1800's? No? Then I don't think that Britain has a right to claim Argentina anymore than they have a right to claim Hong Kong or India. Just because you control a place, doesn't make it justified.

I just realized Helmholtz Watson gets sent to the Falklands at the end of Brave New World D:

Darken12:

Johnny Novgorod:
You know what, good for the Falklanders. At least they cash in euros. We have fucking pesos worth shit. You want to travel, you have to exchange for dollars at a dismal rate. You end up exchanging currencies in shadowy places like you're dealing drugs or something.

They don't let us take dollars (or any other foreign currency) out of the country any longer, remember? They indisputably have it a lot better than us by sheer virtue of being citizens of a better country, so it's pretty obvious why they cling to Britain so (and why I support their desire to remain British). The alternative is horrifying, after all.

I fucking hate Argentine pesos. It's got to be the one currency that makes living expensive, and living abroad even more expensive. No upside whatsoever. I swear tourists must feel like they've stepped into that trashy Eastern European country from Eurotrip, living like kings just using the spare change in their pockets. If they don't get their throats slashed at Retiro anyway.

frobalt:

Johnny Novgorod:

So as history puts it, the claim is valid.

That's the thing, though, how could a British invasion have been classed as illegal before international laws were setup stating that such invasions are illegal? I'm assuming that without the UN there wouldn't have been many, if any, international laws regarding that sorta thing.

As such, I don't think that a country invading and taking over a place 180 years ago gives the nation that were invaded a valid claim to the land now.

Both countries have valid claim over the islands. I think it's just one of those issues in which two countries try to out-macho each other and will never call it quits because it wouldn't look good. The value of the islands is beside the point. Which is why I don't really care who plants their flag and who doesn't. I'm just glad the Falklanders get euros.

Johnny Novgorod:
I fucking hate Argentine pesos. It's got to be the one currency that makes living expensive, and living abroad even more expensive. No upside whatsoever. I swear tourists must feel like they've stepped into that trashy Eastern European country from Eurotrip, living like kings just using the spare change in their pockets. If they don't get their throats slashed at Retiro anyway.

Me too. Imagine what it's like to save for a house, long trip or foreign colleges, where something that's worth 20,000 dollars requires us to save up 100,000 in pesos. It benefits businesses who export, mainly, which is why the government wants to keep the dollar up. They get paid in dollars, who are worth five times as much here. Like being paid five times as much! That's why they're not going to let it go down. Our shambles of an economy would collapse like a house of cards in a hurricane. It's also why there's an import ban and why they don't let us take money out of the country. It's the only way they can keep the budget balanced with the colossal amounts of money they're embezzling and using to pay off their "loyal voters".

Retiro? If those two murdered French tourists are anything to go by, they could get their throat slashed in Palermo SoHo, Recoleta, tourist resorts in Patagonia or fancy country clubs, even. :P

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked