Why argentina people are such whining ass pussies about the falkland war? Such a degenerate ape country...

Why argentina people are such whining ass pussies about the falkland war? Such a degenerate ape country, pls argentinans kill yourselves.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uti_possidetis_juris
en.wikisource.org/wiki/Nootka_Sound_Convention
un.org/en/decolonization/nonselfgovterritories.shtml
cinemark.cl/movies/argentino-ql
ejiltalk.org/why-the-falklands-dispute-will-probably-never-go-to-court/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination
theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/feb/25/falklands-sovereignty-argentina-britain
twitter.com/AnonBabble

you'd be pretty mad too if Perfidious Albion stole clay from you

wow rude
They deserve the Malvinas you stupid memer.

>Pilots didnt hit the carrier
Why argies why?

>deserve
Why?

kek

>Perfidious Albion stole clay from you

Clay is not stolen. It wasn't Argentina's to have in the first place.

Because it's close.
How would you feel if Tasmania was Argentinian clay?

The Argentines living on the islands were forcibly expelled (as a matter of fact the first person to be born on the islands was Argentine, Matilde Vernet y Saez) and replaced with British settlers. Also, the British formally renounced sovereignty and therefore under international law the islands are not and cannot be British.

Isnt about time you stop your empire delusions?

Brits will give them to us someday, no reason to drop the claim, not trolling btw, sincerely believe it, if trump wins and NATO disbands it will speed up the process just as brexit did

>The Argentines living on the islands were forcibly expelled

The French, British and Spainish had been on/using the island a long, long time before your country was born. During your short squatting on our island, you used it as a Penal colony.

>Also, the British formally renounced sovereignty and therefore under international law the islands are not and cannot be British.

When

Nothing delusional about it.

So?
You hunted Injuns for fun and stole their land. I don't see you demanding a country or autonomous region for them because of past injustices.
Whatever happened 200 years ago has no relevance. Falklands have a British people who don't want to be Argentinian.

Brits only keep it out of spite.

>The French, British and Spainish had been on/using the island a long, long time before your country was born. During your short squatting on our island, you used it as a Penal colony.
Spanish sovereignty was transferred to Argentina upon independence due to the principle of uti possidetis juris. The fact that the Spanish controlled the islands is precisely one of the major reasons why the islands rightfully belong to Argentina, thank you for recognizing it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uti_possidetis_juris

>When
The article VI of the first Nootka Sound Convention, an agreement signed between Spain and Great Britain, states that "It is further agreed with respect to the eastern and western coasts of South America and the islands adjacent, that the respective subjects shall not form in the future any establishment on the parts of the coast situated to the south of the parts of the same coast and of the islands adjacent already occupied by Spain". The islands were at the time effectively occupied by Spain.

en.wikisource.org/wiki/Nootka_Sound_Convention

>Nothing delusional about it.
That is not the opinion that the Foreign Office has internally held throughout history, I am afraid.

We can't demand a land for natives of current argentina because they were genocided, amerindians of today are immigrants mapuches from southern chile or people who belong to tribes from northern countries

Btw i don't care about falklanders, they only live in one of the islands of the archipielago, so the other are probably theirs cause they are close right?

You'd be whining too if the eternal perfidious anglo stole your clay and force the people living on it to speak their bastardo anglo language.


MALVINAS LOS ARGENTINAS!


DOWN WITH THE ANGLO!

>Falklands have a British people who don't want to be Argentinian.
So if a group of Chinese living in Helsinki or London suddenly decide they want to be part of China, the city they are living in should be transferred to China?

No, I recognise that Spain once had a claim to it. However, Britain still had its claim to the Islands, your claim does not override the claim on the Islands that we have had since 1690.

With the Nooka Convention you don't seem to understand that we have always had our claim of the Islands. We have never coincided our claim.

>That is not the opinion that the Foreign Office has internally held throughout history, I am afraid.

Whilst it has been considered, the Islanders themselves did not want to leave the UK, because of that our position changed to support their right to self-determination.

See this image, this is how short of a time period your ownership of the Islands was, during which we still asserted our claim and went back to kick you off our territory.

the Invincible was hit and got out of combat

Are you memeing or do you actually believe this?

The Belgrano was hit and your entire navy got out of combat.

>No, I recognise that Spain once had a claim to it. However, Britain still had its claim to the Islands, your claim does not override the claim on the Islands that we have had since 1690.
Correction: From 1690 until 1790, which is when the Nootka Sound Convention was signed and the British legally renounced sovereignty of the islands.

>With the Nooka Convention you don't seem to understand that we have always had our claim of the Islands. We have never coincided our claim.
So you are going to simply ignore what the Nootka Sound Convention says? Okay then. I don't think international law works like that, but whatever makes you sleep well at night, I suppose.

>Whilst it has been considered, the Islanders themselves did not want to leave the UK, because of that our position changed to support their right to self-determination.
The problem with that position is that the current islanders do not have any right to self-determination. They are not the native people of the islands and were not even the first people to settle on the islands. They are, primarily, people born in Great Britain or descendants of people born in Great Britain.

lol why the butthurtness? the islands are yours anyway

They coulda have won if they hadn't such a shit strategy to defend the islands.

>See this image, this is how short of a time period your ownership of the Islands was
That image shows a timeline of de facto control. De facto control does neither mean nor imply de jure (i.e. legal) control.

>The problem with that position is that the current islanders do not have any right to self-determination. They are not the native people of the islands and were not even the first people to settle on the islands. They are, primarily, people born in Great Britain or descendants of people born in Great Britain.
You could say the same for Argentina, fucking retard, or really any inhabited patch of land on earth

>Such a degenerate ape country, pls argentinans kill yourselves.
We agree.

Why would we be butthurt? A Brit rarely starts these threads.

Our navy made the mistake of trusting the perfidious anglo when they said that every military ship or aircraft 200 km off the islands would be attacked, and assumed that meant that the fight would be held inside that zone, especially since no war was actually declared to begin with.

>Correction: From 1690 until 1790, which is when the Nootka Sound Convention was signed and the British legally renounced sovereignty of the islands.
>So you are going to simply ignore what the Nootka Sound Convention says? Okay then. I don't think international law works like that, but whatever makes you sleep well at night, I suppose.

Show me the exact line where we renounced sovereignty, all I'm see is that it reinforced our claim.

>The first Nootka Convention plays a role in the disputed sovereignty of the Falkland Islands between the United Kingdom and Argentina. Article VI provided that neither party would form new establishments on any of the islands adjacent to the east and west coasts of South America then occupied by Spain. Both retained the right to land and erect temporary structures on the coasts and islands for fishery-related purposes.

>However, there was an additional secret article which stipulated that Article VI shall remain in force only so long as no establishment shall have been formed by the subjects of any other power on the coasts in question. This secret article had the same force as if it were inserted in the convention. The Nootka Convention's applicability to the Falklands dispute is controversial and complicated.

>The United Provinces of the River Plate was not a party to the convention. Therefore, it is defined in the convention as 'other power' and the occupation of the settlement (at Port Louis) by subjects of any other power negated Article VI and allowed Great Britain to re-assert prior sovereignty and form new settlements.[5]

(1/2)

Based Brits

ur gay hahahahahahahahahaha

>The problem with that position is that the current islanders do not have any right to self-determination.

Yes they do, real real ironic for you to lecture on internal law, but you to advocate ignoring basic human rights in the same post.

>the native people of the islands

No such thing.

>They are, primarily, people born in Great Britain or descendants of people born in Great Britain.

Irrelevant.

It was a just attack, your government agrees.

>Interviews conducted by Martin Middlebrook for his book, Argentine Fight For The Falklands, indicated that Argentine naval officers understood the intent of the message was to indicate that any ships operating near the exclusion zone could be attacked.

>In August 1994, an official Argentine Defence Ministry report written by armed forces auditor Eugenio Miari[42] was released which described the sinking of the Belgrano as "a legal act of war", explaining that "acts of war can be carried out in all of the enemy's territory" and "they can also take place in those areas over which no state can claim sovereignty, in international waters"

Eat shit.

>lets mobilize our entire fleet to counter a 1945-spec light carrier group

and still lose ships to asm:s,thats the good old royal navy spirit

Brits only live there because UK wastes billions of pounds to maintain it.
"There are people living there" is a weak argument since it's basically just a military base.

Really makes you think

>It was a just attack, your government agrees.

Never said it wasn't, my disgruntled friend. I'm just explaining why the navy wnt back to the continent as soon as the Belgrano sunk; brits would just attack any ship they felt like attacking, inside or outside the exclusion zone and we were not ready to launch a massive anti-sub force

If Argentina wants the Falklands then they can come and get them ;)

Rather we waste millions because Brits live there.

>brits would just attack any ship they felt like attacking, inside or outside the exclusion zone

Because it was a war zone. The exclusion zone was not a limit line and like I've posted, you navy knew they were and accepted they were legit targets in and around the exclusion zone.

> we were not ready to launch a massive anti-sub force

That was your military's problem, not ours.

...

...

I wonder the same every day, OP

Also,

>all that argie butthurt ITT for this cheap b8

I'm ashamed t.bh

>Show me the exact line where we renounced sovereignty, all I'm see is that it reinforced our claim.
Absolutely. Please read the Article VI: "It is further agreed with respect to the eastern and western coasts of South America and the islands adjacent, that the respective subjects shall not form in the future any establishment on the parts of the coast situated to the south of the parts of the same coast and of the islands adjacent already occupied by Spain; it being understood that the said respective subjects shall retain the liberty of landing on the coasts and islands so situated for objects connected with their fishery and of erecting thereon huts and other temporary structures serving only those objects."

>The Nootka Convention's applicability to the Falklands dispute is controversial and complicated.
I would love it if you would explain how it is controversial and complicated. It seems to me that you don't even know what you're talking about.

>The United Provinces of the River Plate was not a party to the convention. Therefore, it is defined in the convention as 'other power' and the occupation of the settlement (at Port Louis) by subjects of any other power negated Article VI and allowed Great Britain to re-assert prior sovereignty and form new settlements.[5]
Due to uti possidetis juris the United Provinces of the River Plate were not simply an "other power", as has been explained before.

By the way, did you conveniently forgot the add the [dubious-discuss] tag when you copy/pasted the text of that Wikipedia article?

>Yes they do, real real ironic for you to lecture on internal law, but you to advocate ignoring basic human rights in the same post.
Tell that to the UN Decolonization Committee: un.org/en/decolonization/nonselfgovterritories.shtml

fucking lmao

>Caring about a shitty island

...

Wasn't there a referendum a few years back where the Falklanders could vote if they wanted to stay apart of Britain or because apart of Argentina. And like 97% of voters voted to remain apart of the UK. Correct me if I'm wrong

>the UN Decolonization Committee
Literally just a third world anti-European circle jerk that no one takes seriously

>Wasn't there a referendum a few years back where the Falklanders could vote if they wanted to stay apart of Britain or because apart of Argentina. And like 97% of voters voted to remain apart of the UK. Correct me if I'm wrong
You are correct. The result was hardly surprising, since the current inhabitants of the islands are primarily people born in Great Britain or descendants of people born in Great Britain.

>The exclusion zone was not a limit line and like I've posted
at the beggining of the war, our navy assumed it was. That's why the Belgrano was sailing just outside the zone when it got attacked instead of just fucking off back to the continent as soon as possible. Our Admirals came to the conclusion that it was a legit attack AFTER it was done, and recognized our navy had made the mistake of assuming stuff. Why are you replying like I'm trying to make a point here? I already recognized it was our navy's fuck up like 3 posts ago

So why are the Faroe islands not ours? They're closer to us than Denmark

cinemark.cl/movies/argentino-ql
>tfw Chile is so obsessed with us they even made a shitty movie to mock us
you cannot make this shit up

A totally unbiased referendum, yes.

...

I ask myself this everyday. Fucking cheeky Danish cunts.

>"It is further agreed with respect to the eastern and western coasts of South America and the islands adjacent, that the respective subjects shall not form in the future any establishment on the parts of the coast situated to the south of the parts of the same coast and of the islands adjacent already occupied by Spain; it being understood that the said respective subjects shall retain the liberty of landing on the coasts and islands so situated for objects connected with their fishery and of erecting thereon huts and other temporary structures serving only those objects."

Again, this says NOTHING about the British renouncing sovereignty. Only saying new establishments cannot be created in areas that areas that are own by Spain.

>I would love it if you would explain how it is controversial and complicated. It seems to me that you don't even know what you're talking about.

Not my words.

>Due to uti possidetis juris the United Provinces of the River Plate were not simply an "other power", as has been explained before.

The Falklands Islands were not Spain's to give. You cannot give something that you do not own away.

>Tell that to the UN Decolonization Committee: un.org/en/decolonization/nonselfgovterritories.shtml

Like clockwork.

They voted to stay as a "nonself governing territory", no human right breaches here.

No. You've missed read what I've said.

The exclusion zone was not a limit line, your navy understood that they could be engaged around or near the line, in fact they had been several times before that.

>Interviews conducted by Martin Middlebrook for his book, Argentine Fight For The Falklands, indicated that Argentine naval officers understood the intent of the message was to indicate that any ships operating near the exclusion zone could be attacked.

>britcucks can't conquer danish islands

Worry not, the UN Decolonization Committee is not the only one who shares that opinion.

ejiltalk.org/why-the-falklands-dispute-will-probably-never-go-to-court/

>argentians start a war for clay that isn't theirs
>get their shit kicked in
>be perpetually butthurt about it to the point of violence against brits
>all over a war they themselves started

You can't make this shit up.

I SUPPORT BRITISH OWNERSHIP OF THE FALKLANDS

>lose war over tiny islands
>complain about it on a multiculti IRC chat 30 years later

you should be glad the current super powers of the world have little interest in conquering your back water country and turning you into a colony like they did 200 years ago

>They are not the native people of the islands and were not even the first people to settle on the islands
Time for almost every person living in any American country to leave then since they're not natives, they have no right to self determination and should go back to Europe.

...

They never stood a chance. They are fucking retarded

>if we take away their human rights, well there's no problem here

really does

just

make

you

*think*

australia is rightful argentinean clay

Silly anglos, you cannot defeat the land of the Danes.

you know that with these threads you're baiting one single argie on the entire board?

The military Junta didn't expect a war to begin with

>Again, this says NOTHING about the British renouncing sovereignty. Only saying new establishments cannot be created in areas that areas that are own by Spain.
Terms such as sovereignty were not used at the time in international agreements. Stop raising the goalposts.

>The Falklands Islands were not Spain's to give. You cannot give something that you do not own away.
You yourself stated in a previous post that the Spanish controlled the islands at one point. Have you changed your mind?

>They voted to stay as a "nonself governing territory"
Exactly, which means that they do not have any right to self-determination.

>Time for almost every person living in any American country to leave then since they're not natives, they have no right to self determination and should go back to Europe.
That is now how self-determination works. Read en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination

Oh, I know.

But I don't reply to correct him, I reply to stop others believing his shitty ideas.

Las Malvinas are rightful Argentinian clay.
Gibraltar is rightful Spanish Clay.

Both are just two of the last pieces of the shattered Bongish Empire

God bless.

Actually it was either that or war Chile, maybe even us.

At least he has solid arguments
Let him be

End yourself

>Terms such as sovereignty were not used at the time in international agreements. Stop raising the goalposts.

So in other words, you are asserting something that is not specified?

>You yourself stated in a previous post that the Spanish controlled the islands at one point. Have you changed your mind?

No, Spain did have control over the Islands at certain points, however the British claim to the Islands never changed.

>Exactly, which means that they do not have any right to self-determination.

How? You cannot unvote yourself to not have human rights. They chose to remain part of the UK, but that can change, they can still vote to remove themselves.

1 8 6 4

>still not asking for it

>I reply to stop others believing his shitty ideas.
You may have to do the same to the Foreign Office, pal.

>"We have no doubt about our sovereignty over the Falkland Islands," said Foreign Office minister Chris Bryant this week. But official papers show that, for more than a century, the Foreign Office has had qualms about the merits of Britain's claim to the Falklands.

>In 1910, a 17,000-word memo was commissioned by the Foreign Office to look at the historical dispute over sovereignty. The study highlighted many weaknesses in the British case and can be seen as our equivalent of the Pentagon Papers, the leaked study of US policy in Vietnam.

>The holes in the British case shocked many officials in Whitehall. The head of the Foreign Office's American department, Gerald Spicer, wrote: "From a perusal of this memo it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Argentine government's attitude is not altogether unjustified and that our action has been somewhat high-handed."

>An assistant secretary in the same department wrote: "The only question is who did have the best claim at the time when we finally annexed the islands. I think undoubtedly the United Province of Buenos Aires." And the British ambassador in Argentina, Sir Malcolm Robertson, wrote in 1927: "I must confess that, until I received that memorandum myself a few weeks ago, I had no idea of the strength of the Argentine case nor of the weakness of ours."

>The study was regarded as so explosive that the British government withdrew it from public view during the Falklands war, but it's now available in the National Archives.

theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/feb/25/falklands-sovereignty-argentina-britain

We attempted to invade Chile, turns out it was really unpopular, and invading you would have ended with us losing 100% sure
The Junta wanted a war that would impress the people so they could have that popularity boost they wanted so much, but at the same time, it had to be an easy fight for a literal third world south american country to win.
The Junta decided that on the best case scenario, brits wouldn't give a shit about the Falklands, reason why our invasion force had orders not to disturb the locals too much, the only couple of them to get injured were actually by brit friendly fire

>But I don't reply to correct him, I reply to stop others believing his shitty ideas.

by doing what exactly?

Kek

Why not invading Bolivia?

Jesus Christ stfu all of you

Beating retards is not usually regarded as a great military victory by most countries.

nobody wants bolivia

They are doing that and we don't do nothing

THE FALKLANDS ARE BRITISH AND WILL REMAIN BRITISH UNTIL THEY NO LONGER WISH TO BE.

Mind you they'd rather be independent than Argentinian.

We do nothing ^

I think it would be pretty popular there to war us besides the odds be low.

Fun fact: We wanted to stay neutral, even though we sold ammo and equipment and told tatcher that if she attacks the ARG mainland we'd join the war. She threaten to nuke us.

>Bolivia

For what purpose?

>So in other words, you are asserting something that is not specified?
Since terms such as sovereignty were not used at the time, scholars interpret international treaties with respect to their intention.

>No, Spain did have control over the Islands at certain points, however the British claim to the Islands never changed.
Completely false, as it has been stated before several times already. It was nullified by the article VI of the Nootka Sound Convention.

>How? You cannot unvote yourself to not have human rights. They chose to remain part of the UK, but that can change, they can still vote to remove themselves
See

>Mind you they'd rather be independent than Argentinian.

The inhabitants should go back to fucking england if they like it so much, or drown in the middle of the ocean for all I care. They do not belong there and have no say in the matter.

>For what purpose?
The question is: Why not?
Ah, ok. This is kinda evident

But the Argentinian immigration law actually is brilliant I think. If shit will be on fire here I gonna go to Argentina. Maybe I will even wear an Argentinian national team football shirt - but I am not sure about that.

>I think it would be pretty popular there to war us besides the odds be low.

Nah, the military was already regarded poorly, and fighting a country with 4 times our population and resources would have been seen as suicidal for most people.

We even had a chance at winning against Chile years before, but a referendum was held sometime after the first attempt at mobilizing and something like 80% of the population voted against the war

How come no Argentines move there?

hahaha wow what's this meme called?

>Poor indions
>Jungle
>Commies

Is the hate between Chile still present?

>referendum
Don't you lose the momentum of surprise by holding a referendum?

>Is the hate between Chile still present?
Among bydlos and nationalistic old people

>was held sometime after the first attempt at mobilizing
The surprise element had already been lost. Besides Chile was expecting an invasion and had a number of planned measures if everything went south