• ByteJunk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      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.

    • BillCheddar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      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.

      • Natanael@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        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?

        • pipi1234@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          There weren’t empty at the time of the British invasion.

          There was an Argentinian settlement with a governor and a military garrison.

      • Starya67@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        You’ve still not explained why Argentina should be allowed to colonise it and Britain shouldnt.

        • ByteJunk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          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”.

        • VoteNixon2016@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 month ago

          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