Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   Argentina: "Give us the precious". England: "No". Argentina: "But we WANTSSS IT"   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 340
    More: Dumbass, Argentine Republic, UK Prime Minister, Cristina Fernandez, territorial integrity, President of Argentina, Falklands War, presents, UN resolution  
•       •       •

20636 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Jan 2013 at 4:54 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



340 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-03 06:02:25 PM  
www.lindaslineage.com
 
2013-01-03 06:02:41 PM  

hawcian: Okay, I know what he meant to say, but that's really amusing. "You're free to choose anyone you like, as long as it's us."


He meant "as long as" in the sense of "while" and not in the sense of "provided that".
 
2013-01-03 06:03:48 PM  

LargeCanine: The Falklands is not even close to Argentina. Nor has Argentina actually ever owned them.


[Netherlands] sights the islands. This is widely accredited as the first sighting of the islands.

Tada, given them back to the dutch. end of story.
right?
finders keepers is the rule if no one was there first, which would also be finders keepers
bwhahahahahahaahahahaa
 
2013-01-03 06:04:23 PM  

Now That's What I Call a Taco!: Language is supposed to simplify over time, not get more complicated, people!


Hej! it's not my language, you Americanians inventimfied it. You cant explain couple things.
 
2013-01-03 06:05:54 PM  
I remember the Falklands Island war.

Next to Granada, it was the oddest war in the 80's.

The British sadly got to learn that French missiles worked really well, sadly.

The Harriers performance was pretty frickin cool as well.
 
2013-01-03 06:06:37 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Lunchlady: Philip Francis Queeg: LargeCanine: The Falklands is not even close to Argentina. Nor has Argentina actually ever owned them.

They're a helluva lot closer to Argentina than they are to Great Britain.

So? Hawaii is closer to Mexico than the US. Cuba used to be a US possession (for far longer than the Falklands was Argentinian, errr, Spanish) and is less than 100 miles away, do we get Cuba because it's nearby? Puerto Rico is closer to the Dominican than Florida, should we cede it?

The citizens of the Falklands voted to remain British, let them.

Cuba was never a US possession. Google "Teller Amendment"


I was more referring to the military rule in the transition after the Spanish-American War, I suppose possession was the wrong word.

My point still stands, our military supervised transition is a hell of a lot better basis for annexation than the shiat the Argentinians have tried to pull.
 
2013-01-03 06:07:00 PM  

spiderpaz: Summary: Argentina has no earthly right to poses the Falklands and are complete hypocrites for even asking. Moreover their leaders are only doing so to distract their people from how miserably pathetic they have been running the country.


The new world was divided between portugal and spain by the pope. so, NOT argentina ...
 
2013-01-03 06:07:58 PM  

jamspoon: Here's a fun explanation of the history of the islands

http://www.fleetstreetfox.com/2013/01/dear-argentina.html


Informative and fun read.  Thanks for posting it.
 
2013-01-03 06:08:40 PM  

Now That's What I Call a Taco!: How come no one says "Argentine" anymore? WTF is an "Argentinian"?

Language is supposed to simplify over time, not get more complicated, people!


Argentine is a noun, Argentinian is an adjective. "She is an Argentine." "The islands were under Argentinian control." If TFA uses Argentinian where it should use Argentine, the author must be mocked and then whipped through the streets.
 
2013-01-03 06:09:31 PM  

moops: WickerNipple: I think it's time to petition the White House to demand Canada give us Newfoundland back.

Fun random fact: Newfoundland didn't become part of Canada until 1947 - until then it was a dominion of the UK.


Isn't Canada itself technically a dominion of the UK?
 
2013-01-03 06:11:07 PM  

Lunchlady: Philip Francis Queeg: Lunchlady: Philip Francis Queeg: LargeCanine: The Falklands is not even close to Argentina. Nor has Argentina actually ever owned them.

They're a helluva lot closer to Argentina than they are to Great Britain.

So? Hawaii is closer to Mexico than the US. Cuba used to be a US possession (for far longer than the Falklands was Argentinian, errr, Spanish) and is less than 100 miles away, do we get Cuba because it's nearby? Puerto Rico is closer to the Dominican than Florida, should we cede it?

The citizens of the Falklands voted to remain British, let them.

Cuba was never a US possession. Google "Teller Amendment"

I was more referring to the military rule in the transition after the Spanish-American War, I suppose possession was the wrong word.

My point still stands, our military supervised transition is a hell of a lot better basis for annexation than the shiat the Argentinians have tried to pull.


If you completely ignore the Teller Amendment which predicated our entire presence there on the fact that we would not annex.

Tell me, what is the morally superior claim for Britain's original annexation? Was it based entirely on a democratic process free of military involvement?
 
2013-01-03 06:12:09 PM  

Saiga410: So when is Canada coming for the Northwest Angle? One of these days I will search out why the US has a small slice of land connected to Canada but seperated from the US by Lake of the Woods. It never made sense.


Treaty of Paris.
 
2013-01-03 06:14:05 PM  

fusillade762: moops: WickerNipple: I think it's time to petition the White House to demand Canada give us Newfoundland back.

Fun random fact: Newfoundland didn't become part of Canada until 1947 - until then it was a dominion of the UK.

Isn't Canada itself technically a dominion of the UK?


Don't tell that to Quebec. They'll get all pissy.

/and fart in your general direction
 
2013-01-03 06:14:23 PM  
Not that this is anything different from the last time Argentina pulled this stunt, and got it's ass kicked, but the people who actually live on that island like things just as they are.
"It is disappointing that today the Government of Argentina is once again ignoring the rights and wishes of the Falkland Islands people. The open letter sent by President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner to David Cameron is not only historically inaccurate, but fails to mention the most significant aspect of our recent history - the attempt by the Argentine Government to take away our home by military force when they invaded thirty years ago. The people of the Falkland Islands, who for nine generations have lived and worked these lands, would like to take the opportunity to clarify some points raised by President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner.

The Falkland Islands had no indigenous population prior to their settlement by our ancestors - the Islands were unoccupied. Argentina claims the Falkland Islands form part of the province of Tierra del Fuego - an area that was not claimed as a part of the Republic of Argentina until after two generations of Falkland Islanders had been born and raised in our Islands.

There is no truth to Argentine claims that a civilian population was expelled by Britain in 1833. The people who were returned to Argentina were an illegal Argentine military garrison, who had arrived three months earlier. The civilian population in the Islands, who had sought permission from Britain to live there, were invited to stay. All but two of them, with their partners, did so.

We are not an implanted population. Our community has been formed through voluntary immigration and settlement over the course of nearly two hundred years. We are a diverse society, with people from around the world having made the Islands their home.

The UN Charter enshrines the right of all people to determine their own future, a principle known as self-determination. It is in exercising this right that we have chosen to retain our links with the UK. It is this fundamental right that is being ignored by the Argentine Government, who are denying our right to exist as a people, and denying our right to live in our home.

As a modern, self-governing Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom, we enjoy a relationship based on the shared ideals of democracy, freedom and self-reliance. We are not a colony of the United Kingdom; we are a British Overseas Territory by choice [emphasis added], which is something entirely different. We are not governed by Britain: we are entirely self-governing, except for defence and foreign affairs. We democratically elect our Legislative Assembly Members; they are chosen by the people of the Falkland Islands to represent them and to determine and administer our own policies and legislation. In March we will be holding a referendum on our political status, so that as a people we can make our views heard in a clear, democratic and incontestable way."

The Honourable Dick Sawle

Member of the Legislative Assembly of the Falkland Islands
 
2013-01-03 06:15:33 PM  

orbister: hawcian: Okay, I know what he meant to say, but that's really amusing. "You're free to choose anyone you like, as long as it's us."

He meant "as long as" in the sense of "while" and not in the sense of "provided that".


It was a humorous "spin" on his statement. Like I said, I understand that he means he won't abandon the Falklands to Argentina as long as they want to be part of the UK.
 
2013-01-03 06:16:23 PM  

Tatterdemalian: It's a socialist thing


Nice theory, except that General Galtieri was about as right wing as its possible to get.
 
2013-01-03 06:16:30 PM  
Sounds like the Argentinians need a reminder of how that whole invasion and war thing turned out last time?

i.imgur.com

Tip: it won't be such an even fight this time around. Not to mention that last time, once the Brits unleashed their nuclear attack subs upon the Argentinian fleet, they pretty much cried uncle.

ARA General Belgrano

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-01-03 06:17:16 PM  
Saiga410: I did not know there was oil. I thought this was about fishing rights.

semiotix: Very oily fish.

I don't normally laugh out loud while I read Fark, but you, sir ... to what address should I send the bill for the new keyboard?

 
2013-01-03 06:17:27 PM  

antron: [i47.tinypic.com image 449x600]


That does not appear to be a steam powered vessel.
 
2013-01-03 06:17:44 PM  
And return Israel/Palestine to the Turks FFS!
 
2013-01-03 06:18:35 PM  

Medic Zero: Last time we sat it out other than providing the Brits with some munitions IIRC.


Not least because Galtieri, like every other murderous right-wing dictator in South America, was seen as a useful ally by Reagan and his cronies.
 
2013-01-03 06:19:35 PM  

unyon: jamspoon: Here's a fun explanation of the history of the islands

http://www.fleetstreetfox.com/2013/01/dear-argentina.html

Informative and fun read.  Thanks for posting it.


ditto +1
 
2013-01-03 06:21:43 PM  

MorePeasPlease: /Seriously, anybody else heard of the "British Isles" before this?


Educate yourself

/Actually a very helpful vid
 
2013-01-03 06:22:48 PM  

Now That's What I Call a Taco!: How come no one says "Argentine" anymore? WTF is an "Argentinian"?

Language is supposed to simplify over time, not get more complicated, people!


According to Wikiedpia, "Argentine," "Argentinian," "Argentinean" are all acceptable.  So rock on with "Argentine" if your funky heart so desires.
 
2013-01-03 06:25:19 PM  

brukmann: And return Israel/Palestine to the Turks FFS!


And Yoko back to the Japs.
 
2013-01-03 06:27:28 PM  
Colonialism was/is not all bad. I can think of a few countries that would be better places to live had they remained colonies such as Zimbabwe or Sierra Leon, Algeria, Papua New Guinea, Hong Kong, Argentina, Mexico

On the other hand it was not so good for places like the Congo or Haiti
 
2013-01-03 06:28:21 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Lunchlady: Philip Francis Queeg: Lunchlady: Philip Francis Queeg: LargeCanine: The Falklands is not even close to Argentina. Nor has Argentina actually ever owned them.

They're a helluva lot closer to Argentina than they are to Great Britain.

So? Hawaii is closer to Mexico than the US. Cuba used to be a US possession (for far longer than the Falklands was Argentinian, errr, Spanish) and is less than 100 miles away, do we get Cuba because it's nearby? Puerto Rico is closer to the Dominican than Florida, should we cede it?

The citizens of the Falklands voted to remain British, let them.

Cuba was never a US possession. Google "Teller Amendment"

I was more referring to the military rule in the transition after the Spanish-American War, I suppose possession was the wrong word.

My point still stands, our military supervised transition is a hell of a lot better basis for annexation than the shiat the Argentinians have tried to pull.

If you completely ignore the Teller Amendment which predicated our entire presence there on the fact that we would not annex.

Tell me, what is the morally superior claim for Britain's original annexation? Was it based entirely on a democratic process free of military involvement?


Which one? The 1610 colonization or the 1833? Frankly it doesn't farking matter what the original claim was, it was almost 200 years ago and the population has voted consistently to remain British citizens and possess British passports. Let me turn your question on itself; what basis is the Argentinian claim?

As stated above by bwesb the Argentinian position is bullshiat for many reasons but if we're going to use proximity as a qualifier for political control you need to answer a lot of questions about a LOT of islands and regions that have changed hands FAR more recently than 1833. To name a few:

Puerto Rico, Cuba, Guam, Kalingrad, Danzig, Strasbourg, frigin all of Israel, the Sinai, the Panama Canal, Jamaica, pretty much all former European Colonies, those piddly islands in the Seas of Japan and South China Sea.

Again, why does proximity matter for a hill of beans when it comes to political alignment?
 
2013-01-03 06:28:37 PM  

hasty ambush: Colonialism was/is not all bad. I can think of a few countries that would be better places to live had they remained colonies such as Zimbabwe or Sierra Leon, Algeria, Papua New Guinea, Hong Kong, Argentina, Mexico

On the other hand it was not so good for places like the Congo or Haiti


So you'e ready to swear your rightful allegiance to the crown then?
 
2013-01-03 06:30:42 PM  

Lunchlady: Again, why does proximity matter for a hill of beans when it comes to political alignment?


Ask Spain. They're still all pissy about Gibraltar, but ask them about Ceuta and Melilla (on Morocco's coast) and they'll tell you that's TOTALLY different.
 
2013-01-03 06:32:48 PM  

FatherDale: brukmann: And return Israel/Palestine to the Turks FFS!

And Yoko back to the Japs.


 First the Beatles now the Japanese?  Haven't they suffered enough?
 
2013-01-03 06:33:21 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: hasty ambush: Colonialism was/is not all bad. I can think of a few countries that would be better places to live had they remained colonies such as Zimbabwe or Sierra Leon, Algeria, Papua New Guinea, Hong Kong, Argentina, Mexico

On the other hand it was not so good for places like the Congo or Haiti

So you'e ready to swear your rightful allegiance to the crown then?


You're trying to catch people in the same hypocrisy you are putting on fine display. You argue that past political affiliations don't matter. Ok, if that's the case then what is the basis for the Argentine claim on the islands? The three month prison colony in 1833? A century after an even EARLIER British colony? Surely you can find something better than proximity?

I suppose you could argue for self-determination. Except, oh wait, the population of the Falklands has voted to remain associated with the UK.
 
2013-01-03 06:33:38 PM  
At least the first Falklands War inspired a decent Elvis Costello tune. Maybe One Direction will have some trenchant commentary for this one.
 
2013-01-03 06:34:12 PM  

Lunchlady: Which one? The 1610 colonization or the 1833? Frankly it doesn't farking matter what the original claim was, it was almost 200 years ago and the population has voted consistently to remain British citizens and possess British passports. Let me turn your question on itself; what basis is the Argentinian claim?

As stated above by bwesb the Argentinian position is bullshiat for many reasons but if we're going to use proximity as a qualifier for political control you need to answer a lot of questions about a LOT of islands and regions that have changed hands FAR more recently than 1833. To name a few:

Puerto Rico, Cuba, Guam, Kalingrad, Danzig, Strasbourg, frigin all of Israel, the Sinai, the Panama Canal, Jamaica, pretty much all former European Colonies, those piddly islands in the Seas of Japan and South China Sea.

Again, why does proximity matter for a hill of beans when it comes to political alignment?


Does the phrase "Monroe Doctrine" mean anything to you?
 
2013-01-03 06:35:27 PM  
THE UK needs these small but intense wars eveny ten years or so to give the SAS some non-turban related battle experience.
 
2013-01-03 06:36:44 PM  
I saw America just democracies that biatch away from both the Argentinians and the Brits.
 
2013-01-03 06:36:50 PM  

JohnAnnArbor: Lunchlady: Again, why does proximity matter for a hill of beans when it comes to political alignment?

Ask Spain. They're still all pissy about Gibraltar, but ask them about Ceuta and Melilla (on Morocco's coast) and they'll tell you that's TOTALLY different.


It's dick-waving. It has nothing to do with principals of governance.
 
2013-01-03 06:38:30 PM  

GranoblasticMan: Educate yourself

/Actually a very helpful vid



Things I learned from that video:

Ireland is technically two confederacies under British rule, each with its own Pope.
Scotland/Wales are actually different names for the same thing.
The Isle of Man is known as the EU outside of the English Isles.
 
2013-01-03 06:38:45 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Lunchlady: Which one? The 1610 colonization or the 1833? Frankly it doesn't farking matter what the original claim was, it was almost 200 years ago and the population has voted consistently to remain British citizens and possess British passports. Let me turn your question on itself; what basis is the Argentinian claim?

As stated above by bwesb the Argentinian position is bullshiat for many reasons but if we're going to use proximity as a qualifier for political control you need to answer a lot of questions about a LOT of islands and regions that have changed hands FAR more recently than 1833. To name a few:

Puerto Rico, Cuba, Guam, Kalingrad, Danzig, Strasbourg, frigin all of Israel, the Sinai, the Panama Canal, Jamaica, pretty much all former European Colonies, those piddly islands in the Seas of Japan and South China Sea.

Again, why does proximity matter for a hill of beans when it comes to political alignment?

Does the phrase "Monroe Doctrine" mean anything to you?


Once again, you bring up something that hasn't really mattered for at least 100 years.

If it makes you happy I agree with you that the Monroe Doctrine is a piss-poor excuse for a foreign policy, though I understand its basis. Doesn't change the fact that you still haven't given an actual reason why Argentina should get control of the Falklands, aside from they're closer than Britain.
 
2013-01-03 06:47:06 PM  

HellRaisingHoosier: I saw America just democracies that biatch away from both the Argentinians and the Brits.


Are you having a stroke?
 
2013-01-03 06:47:08 PM  
There's nothing to give back, neither the land nor the people are historically Argentinian. Give it up!
 
2013-01-03 06:47:15 PM  
Soccer match for the win.
 
2013-01-03 06:48:03 PM  
1980 - Argentina said "it's ours" (nothing to do with oil recently been found or the fact they've ignored the islands for a hundred or so years)

We asked the islanders.

they said "we wanna be british"

Argentina invaded and we destroyed them.

Argentina keep saying "give us back our land".

We said "no, they wanna be british"

Argentina cry to the UN and the US, who pat them on the head

we give the islanders a referendum due in march 2013

As soon as the year 2013 starts "it's ours.. give us back our land"

Lesson: Argentina will use the falklands to take away any crap they have back home and we should just nuke them. Be done with it. Maybe have "don't cry for me Argentina" on the missile.

They don't really give the world anything.... and i've lost family and friends to the ***'s
 
2013-01-03 06:48:34 PM  

semiotix: Saiga410: So when is Canada coming for the Northwest Angle? One of these days I will search out why the US has a small slice of land connected to Canada but seperated from the US by Lake of the Woods. It never made sense.

A better question is, why does Canada get to have a Canada attached to our America? [glares menacingly to the north]

/hee hee! flame on, hosers!
//honh honh! commencez la flamme, opérateurs de tuyaux!


Don't make us take Alaska back.
/Actually, we don't want it
//Too many Americans.
 
2013-01-03 06:52:33 PM  

sefert: semiotix: Saiga410: So when is Canada coming for the Northwest Angle? One of these days I will search out why the US has a small slice of land connected to Canada but seperated from the US by Lake of the Woods. It never made sense.

A better question is, why does Canada get to have a Canada attached to our America? [glares menacingly to the north]

/hee hee! flame on, hosers!
//honh honh! commencez la flamme, opérateurs de tuyaux!

Don't make us take Alaska back.
/Actually, we don't want it
//Too many Americans.


Y'all never had it. We bought it from Russia. And I'm sure the National Archives has the receipt somewhere if you ask nicely.
 
2013-01-03 06:52:54 PM  
The war itself was seen by the pundits of the day as this/
img255.imageshack.us
But, that was before they realized there was oil there.

Of course, in the early 1980s Maggie Thatcher was blamed for making life miserable by the average Brit (poll tax for example), and the prospect of what the Government thought would be a nice, tidy little war had great appeal.to them to rally the populace.

Unfortunately for the "Iron Lady" it didn't translate into long-term support for her policies.
 
2013-01-03 06:55:35 PM  

MOGGEE: [encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 244x207][encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 281x180][encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com image 226x223]

Smoking hot Argentine President is smoking hot.


Dude, you need your eyes checked. She is old and nasty.
 
2013-01-03 06:56:09 PM  

MorePeasPlease: GranoblasticMan: Educate yourself

/Actually a very helpful vid


Things I learned from that video:

Ireland is technically two confederacies under British rule, each with its own Pope.
Scotland/Wales are actually different names for the same thing.
The Isle of Man is known as the EU outside of the English Isles.


www.google.ca
 
2013-01-03 06:59:43 PM  
Smoking hot Argentine President is smoking hot.

She's old and wrinkled. Eww.

Pres. Cristina Fernández de Kirchner has a Mary Steenbergen thing going on
encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2013-01-03 07:00:53 PM  

spiderpaz: Define Irony: The Argentinians claiming they need to take over land from a neighboring island against the will of the people that live there so that they can exploit the natural resources there. Why?... to STOP colonialism, that's why!

LOL - you can't explain that!

1) The Falklands have been British for longer than Argentina has existed.
2) The residents of the Falklands choose to stay British. Argentina subjugating them against their will ... THAT would be colonialism.
3) Argentina is only asking to negotiate NOW because they took a cheap shot and invaded the Falklands and then got beat down - kind of convenient that they don't want ownership decided by force ... after the fact.

Summary: Argentina has no earthly right to poses the Falklands and are complete hypocrites for even asking. Moreover their leaders are only doing so to distract their people from how miserably pathetic they have been running the country.


I would say once a government tries force against another government, the idea that negotiations should result in the same thing that force was used unsuccessfully for is out of line.

They could negotiate an apology to the UK. They could negotiate supplying the Falklands with consumer products.
 
2013-01-03 07:02:11 PM  

MorePeasPlease: GranoblasticMan: Educate yourself

/Actually a very helpful vid


Things I learned from that video:

Ireland is technically two confederacies under British rule, each with its own Pope.
Scotland/Wales are actually different names for the same thing.
The Isle of Man is known as the EU outside of the English Isles.


It's simple. Ireland is a geographical term for the 2nd biggest island in the British Isles. Within Ireland are two countries called the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom which is a country made up of four countries. Both the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom are part of the European Union.

/if you thinks that's hard just you wait
 
Displayed 50 of 340 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report