5 ms·

The article would argue that, rather than being the aggressor, Argentina is attempting to liberate a colonially oppressed region that rightfully belongs to Arge

The article would argue that, rather than being the aggressor, Argentina is attempting to liberate a colonially oppressed region that rightfully belongs to Argentina.

ARandomerDude 4y ago
Have you seen pictures of the Falklands? It looks British, they speak English, and has been under the Crown since 1841. At what point does “liberation” become “taking over?” What happened in 1841 is no excuse for invading your neighbor today.
- colechristensen 4y ago
  Wow, I didn’t realize the scale of these things. There are fewer than 4000 people living on the islands. When there was a referendum about whether to keep the current association with the UK, 3, three people voted no. One, who cares about a tiny amount of land and a few thousand people, it should not be a big international issue. Two, self determination of a population should be important. When 99.8% of the population votes for keeping the status quo, maybe just let them.
  - KaiserPro 4y ago
    exactly, its not actually worth anything. Its like Britain trying to claim the Faroe islands, or France trying to get Sark or Alderney back.
    - pinewurst 4y ago
      That’s not really true - while the islands proper are pretty much just pastures, there’s oil & gas in the boundaries.
      - laserdancepony 4y ago
        That's the argument for almost every sea border dispute around the world. And has been for decades. In most cases, no one has seen a single drop of oil.
  - skissane 4y ago
    The junta needed a distraction from their domestic problems. They thought the British would just give in and they’d be able to sell it as a great victory to the public-instead it turned into an immense national humiliation. And once humiliated, can’t let that hurt go, have to dwell on it. The British didn’t actually care that much about the Falklands - the British government had spent most of the 1970s trying to give them to Argentina, but the islanders opposed it, and they stirred up opinion against it in the UK and in Parliament, and the government’s plans were stymied. But when Argentina attacked-if the UK didn’t fight back, it would be open season on all their other territories around the world, including others they were less willing to cede. And the war destroyed all political prospects of the UK public ever agreeing to support a peaceful transfer.
- atdrummond 4y ago
  I wasn’t taking a stance personally, just explaining how the article was already arguing from a framework that viewed all European land acquisition as “original sins” and illegitimate.
KaiserPro 4y ago
> The article would argue that, rather than being the aggressor I doubt the article would be able to argue that logically. One doesn't invade a place who's entire population has been attached to a country for greater than three generations. I think given the article writer would realise that this would be the same argument that justifies the 2014 crimean invasion, or the trouble in Sudan(both of them), or indeed the troubles in Northern Ireland.
- atdrummond 4y ago
  It’s the inevitable conclusion of the historical framework the article utilized. I agree it doesn’t make much sense in a large number of contemporary cases.

The article would argue that, rather than being the aggressor, Argentina is attempting to liberate a colonially oppressed region that rightfully belongs to Argentina.

ARandomerDude 4y ago

Have you seen pictures of the Falklands? It looks British, they speak English, and has been under the Crown since 1841. At what point does “liberation” become “taking over?” What happened in 1841 is no excuse for invading your neighbor today.

colechristensen 4y ago
Wow, I didn’t realize the scale of these things. There are fewer than 4000 people living on the islands. When there was a referendum about whether to keep the current association with the UK, 3, three people voted no. One, who cares about a tiny amount of land and a few thousand people, it should not be a big international issue. Two, self determination of a population should be important. When 99.8% of the population votes for keeping the status quo, maybe just let them.
- KaiserPro 4y ago
  exactly, its not actually worth anything. Its like Britain trying to claim the Faroe islands, or France trying to get Sark or Alderney back.
  - pinewurst 4y ago
    That’s not really true - while the islands proper are pretty much just pastures, there’s oil & gas in the boundaries.
    - laserdancepony 4y ago
      That's the argument for almost every sea border dispute around the world. And has been for decades. In most cases, no one has seen a single drop of oil.
- skissane 4y ago
  The junta needed a distraction from their domestic problems. They thought the British would just give in and they’d be able to sell it as a great victory to the public-instead it turned into an immense national humiliation. And once humiliated, can’t let that hurt go, have to dwell on it. The British didn’t actually care that much about the Falklands - the British government had spent most of the 1970s trying to give them to Argentina, but the islanders opposed it, and they stirred up opinion against it in the UK and in Parliament, and the government’s plans were stymied. But when Argentina attacked-if the UK didn’t fight back, it would be open season on all their other territories around the world, including others they were less willing to cede. And the war destroyed all political prospects of the UK public ever agreeing to support a peaceful transfer.
atdrummond 4y ago
I wasn’t taking a stance personally, just explaining how the article was already arguing from a framework that viewed all European land acquisition as “original sins” and illegitimate.

KaiserPro 4y ago

> The article would argue that, rather than being the aggressor I doubt the article would be able to argue that logically. One doesn't invade a place who's entire population has been attached to a country for greater than three generations. I think given the article writer would realise that this would be the same argument that justifies the 2014 crimean invasion, or the trouble in Sudan(both of them), or indeed the troubles in Northern Ireland.

atdrummond 4y ago
It’s the inevitable conclusion of the historical framework the article utilized. I agree it doesn’t make much sense in a large number of contemporary cases.