Tshering22
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2010
- Messages
- 18,431
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
Those islands were EMPTY until the British, French, and Portugese began a bit of a scrap for them. Ultimately, the BRITISH colonized them. The islands have nothing to do with Argentina beyond a geographic locality.
Does Venezuela have a claim on the ABC islands (Aruba, Bonaire, Curacao) because they are right off their shore? The islands are Dutch. Should the USA invade the Bahamas? Cuba is more than twice as close to the USA as the Falklands are to Argentina.
It is not like US hasn't invaded countries... I mean come on, you guys didn't help the Brits then; what's all the sympathy now for?
If an island is empty, finders keepers. It would be different if the British kicked out Argentinians 300 years ago. Most importantly of all, the people on the Falklands are British subjects and want to remain that way.
What's the proof that the islands were empty and that they were not cleansed off? The only proof they have is colonial propaganda that has till this date continued. I am not against UK but let's face it; Europeans colonized South America in the worst and most inhumane way possible. We got a glimpse of it in our state of Goa, when we had to thrash the Portuguese out.
By what possible twisted logic does Argentina have a claim on those islands? Consider the status of thousands of islands all over the world... geography has little to do with it.
The same logic that you have when you made Hawaii your territory.
Besides, think about it. This time the entire South America supports Argentina on this issue. It is a continental unity. While South America as such may not be very strong, against UK, a force of Argentine, Brazilian and Venezuelan forces would be too strong. Even with an aircraft carrier, UK won't be able to match these countries who have huge turf advantage to sending dozens of fighter jets at a time.