• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -7
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I agree it’s more British than Argentinian. But “Argentina never one of the rulers” isn’t quite right. There were several stints of Argentinan (or Spanish but back when that was the same thing) occupation long before the war.

    • theinspectorst
      link
      fedilink
      221 year ago

      Yeah, Spanish. That’s the point. There were penguins, then was French, it was Spanish, it was British. It was never Argentinian. There were never civilians there.

      The only civilians who have lived there are the Falkland Islanders, who identify as British. Argentina’s claim is based on the Spanish once having a very limited military presence there, on which basis they want to assert some sort of imperialist sovereignty over a bunch of civilians whose ancestors have been there for hundreds of years and who have only ever considered themselves British.

      • Cosmic Cleric
        link
        English
        -16
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        There were penguins, then was French, it was Spanish, it was British. It was never Argentinian.

        They inherited the islands from Spain (as per their claim) when they won their independence from Spain.

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

        Those islands are allot closer to Argentina than Great Britain, and closer to Argentina than Hawaii is from the US.

    • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin
      link
      fedilink
      English
      31 year ago

      That would give Spain a claim on them then, not the country that exists because it said it was not Spain.