Sore losers even when they’re winning.
Opposing colonialism is being a sore loser now?
You are aware that the first inhabitants of the Falklands were French? There was nobody to be colonised.
the first inhabitants of the Falklands were French?
😐
That’s certainly a theory.
Yeah they colonised some penguins… Got em
The island has been a traffic stop for seafaring people since prehistoric times. The Europeans ethically cleansed the natives, then spent three centuries contesting their control.
How do you know if it’s pre-historic…?
Who were these pre historic natives, and how did they manage to get there without boats?
Did you graduate from any form of schooling?
Are you mistaking penguins for humans
How do you know if it’s pre-historic…?
I would consult an anthropologist on that one.
Who were these pre historic natives
Evidence of prehistoric human activity in the Falkland Islands
Are you mistaking penguins for humans
I’m not mistaking them for the French, if that’s what you’re asking.
It can’t be both a traffic stop and a home.
The dispute is over whether it should be a military base of a foreign power
Careful. As in other debates concerning Latin America, magically people outside the region see all the good of colonialism. “Stop crying. ‘America’ is now the name of a country, even if stolen from your territory”. “Mexico lost half the country just as every other country lost territory in the past”. “The Falkand Islands belong to Europeans because they claimed them: simple as that”. “Well, if you didn’t want to lose sovereignty, maybe you should have been stronger against illegal tactics from the CIA and others”. Just precious.
You must be American
Please explain to me how this is opposing colonialism? They want to colonise the Falklands themselves.
The islands are on the continental shelf.
OK, so?
There’s evidence of pre-Columbian Argentine peoples using the island.
Ah, yes, the fact that prehistoric Fuegians may have visited the Falklands surely means they’re the birthright of Argentina. Airtight anti-colonialist explanation.
It certainly doesn’t belong to the British.
Literally no one was there when France landed there, so you can either a) ask France and Spain for their thoughts, b) resurrect the Fuegians who visited and let them have it, forcibly deporting the people who’ve lived there for centuries, or c) disregard pragmatism and say they aren’t part of any country – either way, you can stop obnoxiously trying to defend Argentina’s baseless colonialist claim under the guise of “anticolonialism”.
To the extent it belongs to anyone, it obviously belongs to the UK far more than it does to the asshurt losers who flaccidly tried and utterly failed to assert sovereignty over it.
it obviously belongs to the UK far more
No land “belongs” to anyone, least of all to the asshurt losers who flaccidly tried and utterly failed to keep their empire alive
They belong to me.
I have as good as a claim on the Islands as Argentina.
Funny how quick the anti-colonialism argument got abandoned when facts entered the picture.
So pre-Argentine as well?
Ah, the Israel school of territorial claim
They sure as fuck don’t belong to England
They’ve belonged to them for over 200 years, I don’t see why they don’t.
Let’s recap islands history:
Deserted, no permanent population.
French set up a settlement.
English makes another, fight the French.
Spain buys French port, fights British.
Britain leaves.
Spain leaves.
Deserted, no permanent population.
Argentina sets up a settlement.
England comes back, fight them off.
Conclusion: “rightfully British”? The law seems to be whoever smacks the other in the teeth and takes it by force, so I suppose that’s accurate.
However, having had a settlement in the island, Argentina’s claim is as valid as the UKs, and they just got smacked in the teeth so my verdict is that Argentina takes over administrative control over the Islands up until such time as they meet again in a world cup.
Argentina didnt exist yet
Yes it did. Argentina’s “Venticinco de Mayo” revolution in 1810 made it independent, though a formal declaration happened only in 1816 (technically “the United provinces of the Rio del la Plata”, that’s being nitpicky).
Deserted, no permanent population.
Argentina sets up a settlement.
England comes back, fight them off.
🤔 Why did England come back? Are you saying Argentina won the war in the 1980s?
What no, I’m talking of the 1830s. The British came back and expelled the Argentinian settlement, and settled back in.
They came back because the Argentinians occupied it.
I see two different reasons for a claim for Argentina: that they settled when there was no permanent occupation, like the French and the British did originally, and that they inherited Spain’s claim (who purchased the French settlement) following their independence from Spain.
My post was mostly going for humour, but if we’re looking at it a bit seriously, England’s claim is a colonial one, a legacy from a bygone era. They will inevitably have to cede the islands.
Because “sail around the world and claim what you want” is fucking great if you’re playing Monopoly. Less great to sort out world affairs in a modern world.
But if the islands were empty before? Like there’s islands who have thousands of years of history of people living there. But then there’s also those who just doesn’t. Are they supposed to stay empty? All humans always bad, or something?
There weren’t empty at the time of the British invasion.
There was an Argentinian settlement with a governor and a military garrison.
There weren’t “people” in the New World, so colonizing it was totally cool /s
Eh, nobody else was using them for anything.
Thatcher’s dead and buried, defending British imperialism isn’t going to get her to sleep with you
You’ve still not explained why Argentina should be allowed to colonise it and Britain shouldnt.
By all the same arguments that you could invoke to justify British colonization in the first place, assuming you’re not going for bullshit like “god gave our King that holy right”.
No one should colonise anything. But the difference between Argentina and The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (God save the King) is as vast as, well, the distance between London and any point in South America
Does Argentina belong to the Spanish? Why do you think Argentina should take them? Who lived in Argentina before the Spanish came? Who lived in the Falkland islands, nobody.
It doesn’t matter who lived there first, because I’ll swear on the King’s life that the Brits weren’t first
Also, “who lived in Argentina before the Spanish came?” Maybe the people living there tens of thousands of years before European colonialism hit their shores?
Really? Who were they? Is there any evidence whatsoever to back this claim up?
Are you saying there were no indigenous people in what is now Argentina when the colonists came? Just a simple search for “indigenous people of Argentina” delivers ample evidence that there were.
It does if the argument is about colonialism.
No one lived there before Europeans arrived.
They sure are fuck belong to whoever the majority of inhabitants want it to belong to.
Just like Greenland.
Isn’t that promoting colonialism?
Opposing would be free Malvinas or something like that.
Opposing would be free Malvinas or something like that.
The native population of the Falklands is arguably the British people living there. Who have clearly stated their preference to remain part of Britain. While Argentina’s plan to displace and deport them, and replace them with Argentinians, is literally genocide and colonialism.
Respecting the native inhabitants’ wishes is anti-colonialism.
Wait, who colonized Argentina? And wait who was first to the Falkland Islands? I genuinely don’t understand why you think Argentina wanting the Falkland Islands has anything to do with opposition to colonialism.
Opposing colonialism is being a sore loser now?
Please recount to me the tales of how the Falklands war ended up going in the 1980s. I’m fascinated by your take.
deleted by creator
This is sad. I wanted to know your perspective, why not try again without deleting it?
Sure as hell the fascist military Junta wasn’t right. I can tell you that.
Genuinely can’t tell which militarily force you are supporting.
deleted by creator
Argentina supports Israel and has an ancap president. They aren’t anti colonial.
Australian New Car Assessment Program? What do they have to do with this?
Anarcho-capitalist. The end state of muh free marketz morons.
Millei is not ancap. He hasn’t legalised jack shit, and is anti abortion. He’s just a conservative.
ah si claro, y el legaliza un montonazo de cosas como minarchista para sacar el gobierno de la libertad de la gente /s
sos boludo?
ah yes, and milei has legalised a BUNCH of shit like any minarchist, in order to take the government out of the way of the freedom of the people /s
Are you a dumbass?
Do you also think the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea is a democracy?
It’s not real colonialism. It’s Sparkling Regime Change.
What regime did the English change when they showed up to an uninhabited island a few hundred years ago?
Nature’s /s
The British came to the island for resupply and left again, much like prior native peoples who had been visiting the island for centuries. And the British, along with French and Spanish peers, decimated the nearby locals to make the islands exclusive
Later, British explicitly removed the island from Argentinian territorial control, back in 1833. But the islands have been changing colonial hands since the 1700s they’ve had visitors from the mainland going back to prehistoric times.
Claiming it’s uninhabitable after Europeans spent decades ethnically cleansing the mainland is cynical af.
Funny how Argentina never thinks to ask the people who actually live there.
They might answer the wrong way you see…
They did answer the wrong way for Argentina
It’s hilarious how one sided that is. Kim Jong Un style numbers.
And it makes complete sense. Falkland islands isn’t a colony. It was uninhabited before the british got there. It’s literally a freezing windy collection of hills in the middle of nowhere a few dozen british shepherds decided to populate and now rely on mainland UK for loads of stuff. So there’s no reason to say no.
Not to mention you look at Britain (with failings) and look at Argentina (mostly failings) and you’re not going to pick one of them to join.
Sort of the thing with war. If you’re on the losing side, it can get a little awkward when you try to stick around.
It has nothing to do with the people. Politicians and oligarchs wave a flag, as they do in any other country, to stir up the masses, but the whole thing is about fishing rights.
The fishing is bad there.
Oil has been discovered in the territorial waters, but this was long after the war and is as yet unexploited.
Basically, it’s a rallying point that successive corrupt and failing Argentine governments have deployed in an attempt to distract from domestic failings. That’s its value.
Asking the people that currently leave there is not always the correct course of action though.
You want that land over there? Then you just have to kill/displace anyone currently living there, then fill it with your own citizens, then ask them. Easy land grab. Also a genocide.
Except in this case there was nobody living on the island, so the “natives” are all of European descent and overwhelmingly (like 90+%) want to stay part of the UK.
1,513 voted yes to stay part of the UK overseas territories. 3 people voted no.
Even those no voters were not saying yes to Argentinian rule.
I believe some (or all) said they did it for a prank.
Yeah, that happens when you kick out the existing argentinian/spanish settlement (I don’t remember if it was before/after independence) and bring your own British settlers, as I explained before.
Idk what European descent has to do with anything. Many Argentinians are of European descent.
Yeah, that happens when you kick out the existing argentinian/spanish settlement
The islands were totally abandoned and relinquished when the British arrived.
You want that land over there? Then you just have to kill/displace anyone currently living there, then fill it with your own citizens, then ask them. Easy land grab. Also a genocide.
That’s virtually all of human history.
But not the Falklands, when the British arrived the population consisted of Penguins and nothing else.
Nah. For most of human history there were not referendums to “let them choose”. They just annexed the place.
The referendums is a relatively modern “invention”.
I can’t think of a nation with a bigger chip on their shoulder than Argentine. It’s kind of weird.
It’s absolutely bizarre, they have no legitimate claim to the islands. It’s like someone moving into your house when you are on holiday, and saying it’s theirs.
Plenty of countries have uninhabited islands as part of their territory, it doesn’t mean they’re up for grabs.
Had they not invaded there’s a good chance they would be Argentinian by now, which is the funniest part of the whole fiasco.
Gave Thatcher an easy election win, which is genuinely unforgivable.
That’s the fucking part that blows my mind. They were about to get it back for fucking free. But the Military Dictatorship had to Military it up and then not only got their asses handed to them, but also gave Thatcher and Reaganomics the boost of a lifetime.
Every single time I see anything argentinian named “LAS MALVINAS ARGENTINAS XYZ” it feels so fucking pathetic. They put it on a (now worthless) 50 peso banknote.
It was never really about ownership of the islands as such. The real prize is for Argentine politicians to be able to forment nationalism against an external enemy, to distract and enthuse the voters.
Buttsore from the fall of the third Reich.
They are up there with Serbia and Russia
How about Ireland, you American clown 😂
Totally different kettle of fish.
Also I’m not American, you eejit.
Also this:
Argentina invaded the island killed 3 Falklanders and then got their ass whooped. And to this day Argentines think they are the victims.
The victims of this conflict are the casualties of a completely pointless war, on either side. Neither side fought for legitimate reasons and both used it to drum up nationalism.
How is defending against an invasion not legitimate?
It’s only legitimate out of context. The two countries were trying to negotiate a transfer before the war broke out. Argentina was ruled by a military Junta and used the invasion to bolster its internal politics. Thatcher did the same thing by using overwhelming force over a territory that Britain was trying to get rid of. An Argentine cruiser was sunk outside of the exclusion zone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_ARA_General_Belgrano
Afterwards Britain fortified the island to feed its military industrial complex and drum up more support for its decaying empire. Everything about this war was totally pointless except from a domestic political standpoint.
It’s legitimate in context. I’m not addressing all your points, but the exclusion zone was never “this is the only place we’ll be fighting”
So what should have been the right move then when Argentina invaded the islands? Should Thatcher just have abandoned the people on the Falklands and let them fend for themselves?
No, those 907 people absolutely had to die so that Britain could keep its frozen rock halfway around the world.
I doubt the regime that threw dissidents out of helicopters would have just let the British Falklanders live peacefully among the Argentines.
Helpful, but is there more context here?
Such as who are there people currently living there and therefore voting in this referendum?
The descendants of the only people to live on the islands since pre-history. Literally the only people whose opinions count, including the uk population and government. It doesn’t matter what the Argentinians or the British think really, same as Greenland - the people who live there want to be a part of the uk
Sure, I entirely agree on principle. But that’s my question, who are these people? According to Wikipedia, there are no such people:
Although Fuegians from Patagonia may have visited the Falkland Islands in prehistoric times, the islands were uninhabited when Europeans first explored them.
So I suppose I have my answer overall. The people living there are broadly the descendents of the French, Spanich and English who settled there in the late 18th century. The French ceded the settlement to Spain a year after they started, so even just scratching the surface of the situation it looks like it’s been a mess for 250 years.
But in any case, the people living there, now, clearly want to remain a UK territory.
The French and Spanish occupants had long abandoned the islands before the English arrived.
The modern population of the island are the natives, kinda like how Icelands population is completely native to the island. Not to say people didn’t fuck around on the island occasionally but there’s basically no evidence of prehistoric settlement of the Falklands.
Greenland wants to be part of the UK 🤔
Nah, I meant that the population of Greenland want to remain under the administration that they’re currently under
People who has always live there?
The Maldives has never had Spanish/Argentinian population.
Argentina only claims it based on physical proximity, not on the will of its population.
Malvinas not Maldives (they’re half a world apart), and there have been briefly Spanish/Argentinian populations on the islands between 1774 and 1820 but none since then. The majority of whom were one of a) a military garrison b) convicts c) guards of convicts. Very small numbers of non military settlers during that period
So broadly yes, everyone who has been there since the early 1800s is aligned with the UK
Thanks, this was helpful and also prompted me to look more into it.
These types of displays were banned by FIFA, no? If so , shouldn’t there be some kind of disciplinary action?
They have to double check with FIFA Peace Prize recipient Donald J. Trump before they make any calls, they don’t want to accidentally discipline the wrong team
They were, but IMO there shouldn’t.
The “no politics” rule strips people of a big platform to protest against injustice and further other righteous causes, and that’s the INTENTION the corrupt leaders of FIFA had.
Red card everyone in that pic. Then the next day say you had a chat with Milei and now the coach is red carded too.
Argentina played some of the dirtiest WC soccer I’ve ever seen. Grabbing the English goalie’s arms during a corner kick, regularly shoving opposing players in the back and grabbing their jerseys when they got the ball during a fast break. The referee only handed out a single yellow card, and let everything else pass.
Messi wasn’t doing it so overtly, but everyone else especially Simeone, were just blatant. Have no dog in this race, but that was just gross.
4 yellow cards, 1 for England, 3 for Argentina. Martinez, Romero, and De Paul all got carded, as did Anderson
Personally, I think the ref should have started handing them out right from the start to set the tone, but then I hate dirty football. I personally think you should beat the other team by playing better football
They’ve always been like that. They poisoned a player once. FIFA did nothing.
Argentina played some of the dirtiest WC soccer I’ve ever seen.
You have to watch the France - Paraguay game. Absolutely crazy. Paraguayan players literally punching, elbowing, karate chopping French players, no fouls called.
Agreed, watching the match was painful. Spain vs France was a much, much better game.
The refereeing in that game was arguably worse than the Argentina-England game. And this is coming from an England supporter.
but everyone else especially Simeone
His dad was one of the dirtiest players to ever wear a football kit. I guess he must be proud.
And Norway got their goal annulled because some little push.
FIFA corrupt
Simeone should have been sent off, but more than anything I’m shocked that one Argentine backbencher didn’t get booked for excessive celebration lol
The second half was fantastic football though. Unfortunately England earned the loss
That’s just CONMEBOL and CONCACAF football tbh. It’s kind of funny watching Europeans being all smug about Americans only watching football every 4 years, when it’s equally amusing seeing Europeans who aren’t aware that the American game tends to be more physical and chippy.
The English league is notoriously more physical than the other big leagues in Europe.
Argentina was no more physical than England that game. They were both trading fouls in the first half
Throughout this tournament, I’m legitimately baffled at some of the things that aren’t even considered fouls, according to the announcers. Like defenders literally tackling players to the ground. The announcer; that’s good clean play, no foul there, that’s great defense, good “no call” by the ref. Might as well start wearing helmets and pads and calling this football now…
Rule of thumb. If they touch the ball then it’s not a foul.
It would be interesting to see them actually succeeding with conquering those islands just to see them so this:
Now they actually had to deal with their ruined socioeconomic problems instead of political rallying around a made up issue.they’ll sink their economy just like the rest of Argentina
Not sure how I feel about this.
From my understanding the island wishes to stay part of the UK, but I don’t know if historically that’s because they colonized the fuck out of it.
Argentina is also kind of an asshole country, so is the UK. Both in their own way.
Argentina also played like absolute assholes. The UK is notorious for being assholes about football.
I guess I’ll just say oof.
There was no colonization.
The issue with the malvinas/Falklands is that there are no “historically rightful owners”, since no one lived there when they were discovered by the British.
But it’s also not as easy as “the British discovered, so it’s theirs”, because they just discovered and left. They didn’t leave no settlement.
The islands have a complicated history, both sides have strong arguments in favor of themselves, there’s no clear cut “rightful owner”.
The British didn’t discover the islands - the French (and then the Spanish) did. But they won them after that, so your points are still good - just wanted to point this part out
To clarify, Britain didn’t “win” them. The previous occupants had abandoned it totally as it wasn’t worth much to them. When Britain arrived, it was desolate and abandoned with no prior claim. This was, by the way, some time before Argentina existed.
The French discovered Thema in 1764 , the britisch claimed Thema in 1765, the spanisch came only in 1770 with a force oft about one and a half thousand nen forcing the british off of the Islands
Well the islands are settled now and they’re settled by people who think they’re British so I can’t really see how you can functionally come to the conclusion that there is any mystery.
Argentina’s claim to the islands seems to be their they are sort of close to Argentina, although far enough out to be an international waters and there was once a Spanish settlement there back before Argentina existed as a country. By the time Argentina became its own country the Spanish settlement was no longer in existence.
So from most of human history the islands were uninhabited or only sporadically inhabited and we’re talking the level of driftwood huts here, no permanent structures. If anyone had any legitimate claim to the island it would be Spain they were the first to build proper buildings on the islands, at least they had a settlement there until they abandoned it, but then they quite happily sold the rights to the land to the British.
I agree with this take. The claims are plausible from both sides but England obviously won the battle. The inhabitants being established are a result of the military positioning, so their votes will obviously be skewed. Not sure their votes are comparable to those of say native populations of other disputed territories (since there were none).
So I can understand why the Argentines feel aggrieved.
The Argentine claim is implausible. The Falklands were British before Argentina was created. Their reasoning is that it had been used by the Spanish, and so had now-Argentina, therefore dibs.
Argentina gained independence from Spain on 25 May 1810
In 1840, the Falklands became a Crown colony and Scottish settlers subsequently established an official pastoral community.
Crown colony is just a title, the UK had settled the island decades prior
Actually no - they were driven off by the spanisch in 1770 but never gave up their claim - however Ehen the british resettled the Islands in 1830 they were in fact abandonded
Right but the claim predates Argentina’s existence.
The only way Argentina has legitimate claim to the island would be if Spain still maintained the claim to the island at the time Argentina became independent and even then they would have to have to cead the Falkland Islands to Argentina. Which of course never happened.
But they were claimed by the britisch in 1765
British and Spanish.
The British and Spanish settlements coexisted in the archipelago until 1774
Now, is independence from Spain also independence from all it’s territories? I would argue yes.
Hm that’s tough. I always like to think boundaries set by countries are bullshit anyway, but it is located closer to Argentina. Another comment says they both want it because the island comes with vast amount of fishing so economic reasons. And the UK probably put money forth to develop some sort of living situation on there.
The UK is the only one’s who have ever invested on infrastructure. And it is all mostly to support the fishing industry. This is about money for the UK. The people who live there are descendants from people of all sort of places, because they were fishermen for a British fishing company. No wonder when asked, they prefer to be considered British. All Argentina has ever done on the island is bombing them.
Argentina also confined the townsfolk in makeshift prisons and blew up bridges.
The UK has never profited from the islands. It has been a sinkhole of money.
The US is closer to Greenland than Denmark is.
But with that thought Canada is closer.
Greenland could become part of Canada some day. Though proximity is just a minor part of it.
Proximity matters but only up to a point. The Islands aren’t that close to Argentina, I can’t remember what the exact limit is but under international law islands along to the country whose coastline is closest to them up to a distance of 10 nautical miles as long as there is no claim already in place. Of course that’s an international treaty which historically didn’t necessarily count, which is why you’ve got things like American Samoa and Hawaii.
A simple rule of thumb in geopolitical disputes is to see who England is supporting, and support the other side.
Corollary: a simple rule of thumb when trying to figure out why some historical tragedy occured is to ask what England was doing at that time.
Maybe for some things that works but the island is deep in international waters and Argentina never had any cultural ties to the place. It’s purely economic.
And while I don’t really care for the British. There’s really nothing Argentina has a right to I think.
The claim for Argentina is about as strong as America’s claim to Greenland
I don’t want to comment on Argentina’s claim since I know nothing about it. But England should never be allowed to own any other piece of land, and definitely not one in another continent.
To clarify, the ENGLISH are assholes about SPORT, not the UK, there are other cultures in there that are vastly different in their attitudes, it will be import to remember that when it comes to election time as well since you will find different parts of the UK will be voting in very different ways.
What season was this from?
deleted by creator
Argentina then belongs to Spain. Do your thing Lamine.
So Messi believes that Argentina should colonize the Falklands? Man I really wish he had just stayed a football autist.
Every Argentine believes it should be colonized by them. Not a surprise when the country is like 90% descendants of colonizers. It’s the whitest in South America, the indigenous people have been mostly displaced. And it’s also the place that gave fleeing Nazis a home.
Oh shit, some people who kick a ball around for money have unfurled a banner.
Its over.
Fr. Caesar don’t GAF about the gladiators’ political views.
Source in case you’re wondering if the photo is real: www.theguardian.com/football/2026/jul/15/malvinas-is-argentinian-world-cup-holders-celebrate-win-over-england-with-banner
It’s a shame it has come to this, especially that Scaloni - Argentina’s coach - opposed the whole war undertones by saying that “it will be just a football match and nothing more” during a press conference.
Remember the shit that the officials threw at team captains who wanted to wear a rainbow-colored team captains band? That was two or four years ago. IIRC they threatened to ban the player or team for political messages on the field.
If this banner is not a ban-worthy offence, I don’t know it.
I thought the whole Falkland Islands war in the 80s was mainly as an outlet for Thatcher to rally people behind and justify austerity, which was wanted by the neoliberal admin to distract from the privatization making things more expensive.
It was also so the dictator of Argentina could rally people behind him because he was losing popularity.
Oh yes, 100%. Just another case of regular people being used as pawns for the interests of the elite ig
I thought the whole Iran war in the 2020s was mainly as an outlet for Trump to rally people behind and justify unchecked cost of living increases, which was wanted by the billionaire class to distract from the privatization making things more expensive, and also the Epstein Files.
I thought the whole Iraq war in the 2000s was mainly as an outlet for Bush to rally people behind and justify unchecked sprawling surveillance, which was wanted by the neocons and their rich donors to solidify their social control from / and the privatisation.
Nah it was also about Cheney’s thirst for oil and blood.
^^
Under the 25-year rule most govt docs are released at the National Archive and, counterintuitively, turns out Thatcher went above and beyond to prevent war, even offering to negotiate the future status of the islands. In their dictatorial vigour the Argentines declined to talk. It was only the coming of Southern winter and the prospect of an entire season where the Argentines could fortify that convinced her to send the fleet.
.ml account
“I thought… something wildly misinformed, because capitalism!”
I’m utterly flabbergasted. FLABBERGASTED I SAY!
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/apr/01/us-feared-falklands-war-documents?intcmp=122http
You do know the only reason Lemmy exists for you to freely speak on, is because of explicitly anticapitalist devs toiling to combat the gross shit for-profit digital platforms are doing? Just making sure.
counterintuitively, turns out Thatcher went above and beyond to prevent war, even offering to negotiate the future status of the islands. In their dictatorial vigour the Argentines declined to talk.
It’s incredible that if the dictatorship did nothing, they’d have the fucking islands by now. Same as china and Hong Kong, they didn’t have to start installing puppets and be an asshole just yet, they could just have waited a bit more and the island would be 100% theirs with 0 controversy.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/apr/01/us-feared-falklands-war-documents?intcmp=122http
Above and beyond to prevent war is a misleading simplification…
I mean … She did not Start the war Without the argentines attacking there is no falklands war
Right, I’m not saying she somehow was working behind the scenes to provoke an attack, just that at a time when she was being pressured by people like Milton Friedman to privatize-max, she couldn’t just make British taxpayers buckle down for austerity for seemingly no reason. The war then became a “good” reason to justify people contributing to the war effort. At least that’s my understanding from Naomi Klein’s “The Shock Doctrine.”
