The Falkland Islands debate

[MrBubbles]

pariz said:

man-bear-pig said:

Argentina doesn't have a leg to stand on IMO. The Islands are 400 miles off of the Argentine coast, which is kinda like the UK claiming they own Iceland... Kinda. Also, the people of the country would prefer UK rule, so I don't see how any Global body could support the Argentine claim. However, if there is 60 billion barrels of oil found beneath the seabeds surrounding the Falklands ($7.2 trillion dollars worth using current oil prices or 15x Argentinas annual GDP) then, unless both governments can come to an agreement of sharing the money generated from it, then god knows what will happen... War perhaps? S. American bloc vs European (/US potentially) bloc. Very unlikely, but possible, especially considering nut-jobs like Hugo Chavez have a lot of political sway in South America.

The Malvinas were Spanish first and Argentinian later (since 1816) and when the British took control of the island they expelled the argentinian who lived there.  It's not about how far it is from its coasts. IT'S ABOUT THEY WERE TAKEN BY FORCE BY A COLONIALIST EMPIRE.

The people living in the islands are british, they were brought there because of its geopolitical importance and they used our hospitals until 1982. FOR FREE.

the islands were french and british first actually.  and spain bought the french rights and the islands spanish name comes from the french name. the british claim was never given up.

on top of that spain didnt even recognize the argentinian independence and the islands were not controlled by argentina at its time of independence, a revolting colony cant inherit other claims and spain never ceded rights of the island (which they didnt even have any more after agreements with the british) even when it recognized argentina.