submitted 2 weeks ago by Nagarjuna@hexbear.net to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml

Turning the global conflict meter and looking back at the audience like a contestant on the price is right

top 24 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] Fisk400@feddit.nu 16 points 2 weeks ago

England. Famous for giving things back when asked nicely.

[-] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 4 points 2 weeks ago

If we did. It would be to the French. As Argentina has never had any presence on the island.

[-] stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 weeks ago

This is such a strange take. Your argument amounts to adverse possession and comes across as very colonial.

[-] lennier@kbin.social 5 points 2 weeks ago

Whereas Argentina, a nation which only exists due to a colonial empire taking adverse possession of (already populated, unlike the Falklands) land, and whose entire claim boils down to "it's kinda near me and I want it, someone who never administered it promised it to me" is definitely morally right and justifies the forced expulsion of the only permanent population an island has ever had.

[-] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk -1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Not exactly an uncommon take. Settlement is pretty much how the world recognises national land claims.

Given all humans immigrated from Africa originally. Settlement is really the only claim any nation can use beyond force a very colonial method.

I'd agree the British 1690 landing claim is weak and colonial. But Argentina has never controlled the islands for more then justnover a year. So impossible to argue settlement. France were def the first to build a settlement their. Followed by the UK and then Spain. Given Argentina only had a presence as a nation from 1932 to 1933. They really have the weakest claim of any nation.

That said raising the islands seems to be the Argentina politicians equivalent of immigration. A subject used to distract the population from their own screw ups.

[-] wildncrazyguy@kbin.social 1 points 2 weeks ago

Their implies ownership, or are you using it to be cheeky? It's in your second comment too.

[-] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 4 points 2 weeks ago

LOL typo im not a great writter and have to reread things a few times. Ill leave it.

[-] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 4 points 2 weeks ago

To be fair I am legally blind so take some time to edit comments. And likely have fucked up a few sends. So need to reread a before I can answer that.

[-] FuckyWucky@hexbear.net 10 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

i don't think he alone has enough clout for starting a war with the UK. I think it would be best for Argentina to just let it be for now.

Mrs Thatcher, still hated by many for ordering the navy to fire on the Belgrano warship, was described by Mr Milei as "one the great leaders in the history of humanity” during his campaign.

Of course he rides Thatcher

Mr Milei, 53, said in the debate: "We had a war – that we lost – and now we have to make every effort to recover the islands through diplomatic channels."

Less insane than most of the shit he has said I guess. Argentina is not getting that Island back through diplomacy.

[-] stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 weeks ago

Argentines still vilify the English, this isn't surprising. You find official murals around the city showing the English with labels as "THE ENEMY". There are still people in front of the Casa Rosada collecting money for veterans. Miele would have been all of 12 years old when the Falkland Wars occurred, seems he didn't learn from this.

[-] maquise@ttrpg.network 9 points 2 weeks ago

Didn’t they get their butts beat the first time?

[-] stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 weeks ago

Margaret Thatcher was, indeed, a terrible human and had no issue using the gigantic UK navy to put down some brown people in the global south.

[-] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

gigantic UK navy

LOL Not since the 2nd world war. And def not in 1980s when we had a total of 64 active ships, at the time the lowest since 1650s. We now only have 19. We have more coastal patrol ships. But they are limited to our own waters. We have not had a "Gigantic Navy" at anypoint in modern times. Mainly because we do not see it as an appropriate defensive force any more. Air superiority is way more important. And even their we are far far from a giant force.

[-] stolid_agnostic@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 weeks ago

Nobody besides you suggested that one would keep a standing navy at the same levels as during a world war. In comparison to the third world, however, the UK indeed had a GIGANTIC navy and Argentina could provide no defense. Don't mistake it: this was the first world bullying the third, and the global north not GAF about the wellbeing of the global south.

[-] Deceptichum@kbin.social 1 points 2 weeks ago

This wasn’t the first world bully the third.

This was a fascist government invading an neighbouring country and getting its arse kicked.

[-] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 2 points 2 weeks ago

while you are correct. 1st vs 3rd world is an old cold war term that reeks of racism. 1st world were the allies to the US. 2nd world was Russian allies. 3rd world was all the nation to poor to be considered worth caring about. Who happened to be mainly in the global south.

So while I totally agree Falklands was not a racist act. 1st and 3rd world really is a term we need to expunge as our history is full of plenty of others acts that were.

[-] Deceptichum@kbin.social -2 points 2 weeks ago

Geopolitical terms are not by default racism. Likewise 3rd world was nations not aligned with the US or USSR, not nations too poor to be worth caring about.

Also fuck 'global south', most idiotic term I've ever heard. Imagine pretending that Russia is in the same sphere as other Western countries and that China is a struggling economy compared to Russia? Fuck off with that nonsense, meanwhile one of the worlds most southern countries is considered northern.

[-] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 1 points 2 weeks ago

Yes but the fact is the actions of Europe in the 1700 has left nations we think of as southern poorer then northern nations. And most of those nations were not allies to a cold war side. Because both sides did not consider then stratigically important.

Given the European (my ancestors of course) actions of treating the area as resources to remove. And the clear fact that the wealth of the north has been built upon those resources.

Ignoring them during the cold war may not have intentionally been due to povertly. But the fact they were behind other nations and unable to catchup was. Meaning there was a def link between poverty and them being named 3rd world. Caused by previous european actions.

As for the global south. I dont understand the term myself. But as it is a term certain nations have chosen themselves to represent the issue. I am not arrogant enough to tell them they cannot use the name for themselves. Or that I will call them something else.

[-] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk -1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

In 1982 the UK navy was not in the top 10. Our military as a whole was likely in the top 5 but we had been reducing our navy to the point we needed to convert civilian ship as mine sweepers.

"When Argentina launched the attack on British citizens Living on land Argentina had absolutely no claim to" The simple fact is if any nation ignored a hostile power trying to forcibly take over the homes of their citizens. Especially when that hostile power had recently lost an election among those citizens to give the nation to them and become Argentine citizens. No one would consider the leader of that nation to be doing their job.

Thatcher was a bitch and most Brits agree with you their. But her actions in the Falklands were forced by the Argentine government nothing more.

The fact that the Argentine navy is tiny. Just goes to proves how fucking stupid it was to try and take land by force. When you punch big guy in the nose. No one feels sorry that he breaks your arm. Only that your mouth is to big to back up your threat.

Argentina failed to convince the people of the Falklands that they wanted to join Argentina. So started a war as a way of distracting their own population from their government corruption. And have been using the same trick every few years for the last 5 decades.

[-] Nagarjuna@hexbear.net 5 points 2 weeks ago

"Through every diplomatic means possible"

I.e. he's gonna ask nicely

[-] driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 9 points 2 weeks ago

What a noob. He should wait until a crisis on his government to drop that card.

[-] Jaysyn@kbin.social 4 points 2 weeks ago

The UK has a shiny new aircraft carrier that says he's wrong.

[-] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago

Aw fuck, so WW3 really is going to start over the Falkland islands.

[-] jol@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 2 weeks ago

Everyone distracted with Palestine and Taiwan, and this is what triggers ww3? This is the most amusing of time lines.

this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2023
43 points (97.8% liked)

World News

2 readers
88 users here now

News from around the world!


founded 4 years ago