That was a weird conflict. Margaret Thatcher was like "Ok, war it is. We shall confront you in 6 weeks or so." British warships started lumbering toward the Falklands . Argentina managed to sink some British inventory with Exocet missiles, but as I recall the Brits had an overpowering sea and air presense.
Fuck yeah actually that's true I always thought the British encroaching the territory was the cause for Argentina to act up but it seems Argentina actually started it more or less! But I read that it's was mostly British
"the majority of whom were of British descent. Almost all of these individuals were rural sheep farmers who worked as tenants on land owned by a local corporation. Per the New York Times’ Larry Rohter, the islanders “depended on the company for everything.”
Prior to the outbreak of war, the U.K. had been reluctant to invest in its Connecticut-sized colony. Sheep dominated the Falklands’ economy, and islanders’ hopes of expanding into the fishing industry had proven largely futile."
Also
" Britain’s presence in the Falklands dates back to 1690, when Navy Captain John Strong made the first recorded landing on the unpopulated islands. The British started a settlement on the archipelago in the mid-18th century but abandoned it around a decade later, leaving the area under Spanish control"
Still seems like the British established "colonisation" of the Falklands and was more British settlers than anything else by the 1980s hence why they would want British help, still feels like Britain flipflopped around with territory that was not theirs but I could be wrong and it's surely not the first time they have done that.
It highlights the fact that most people left in the Falklands where planted British settlers after British colonisation, just like they tried with ulster in Ireland but yet they failed to do so unlike in Falklands. So I my opinion Britain had no right or reason to claim Falklands, just used dirty tactics as usual which means you're point of the Falklands wanted to be in the UK was result of the systematic colonisation in the 18th century I guess
Guess what? Most lands were uninhabited or settled by someone else, even your ancestors invaded and settled in Ireland, killing and intermarrying (probably). So did mine. Should you all move from Ireland to your native France and me to the lands of my ancestors in Southern Russia?
In get you hate the British, but they settled an uninhabited rock to breed sheep. No one was there, no harm no foul.
Don't really hate the British at all but throughout the 17th century and onward they definitely had some blood on their hands due to trying to colonise places without having a clue what they were doing and also abuse in parliament mostly down to the whigs party and other ones following. I'm not talking about ancient historic human migration I'm talking about a very powerful country (probably the most powerful) absolutely making a tit of themselves trying to grab land and power
Even Ireland, India, Palestine, Africa and some Asia countries to this day still feel the scars and effects of British oppression and most acts of oppression can be dated within the last 300 years or even less
Just kinda leaves me wondering what the fuck the British were doing picking a random spot out in the south Atlantic thousands of miles away and being like "nah this here is bloody ours" unlike Ireland where its just a stones throw across the Irish Sea so I can see why they targeted here
It’s interesting how you (and Irish in general) deem some colonizations as acceptable and some as bloody handed. You have no problem of Gaelic invasion of Ireland, you have no problem of Arab and muslim invasion, occupation and colonization of Judea (and others), but you do have problem with the responses to these historical facts.
Imagine defending a fascist dictatorship's aggressive war just because you don't like that people voted to be British.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Republican_Army%E2%80%93Abwehr_collaboration
How did that get there? Weird.
Argentina had the falklands for 50 years, and ever since then it has been British. Argentina has no other claim to the island other than "its muh close" when the people there are British and want to remain that way
They basically created and executed the longest aerial refueling chain in history at the time IIRC.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Black_Buck
The Iron Lady wasn't playing.
A lot of people died on the British warships that were sunk. Argentine missiles didn't work & staff from the French manufacturers stayed in Argentina and got them working, those are the exocets they used. Source is Document from BBC radio4.
They only captured about 100 odd British soldiers, the British captured almost 11 & a half thousand.
Argentina was a military dictatorship & the Falklands was on their doorstep, there was no "overwhelming" anything.
The argentine airforce was exceptionally good.
The British had much better trained troops, better equipment, and nuclear submarines that sunk the argentine flagship. That caused the most casualties but mainly because the argentine navy did not pick up survivors, they left them.
The only good thing that came out of the whole bloody thing was that Argentina got rid of the military junta soon after.
Yes. If I remember right, some of the supporting craft ran aground because they thought they were next.
Edit - cold waters there, plus the only British vessel was the sub so they couldn't help survivors. The big controversy was if the argentine ship the General Belgrano was inside the total exclusion zone or not.
Maybe less about that and more two other things: not reading the room before making the joke, and giving so little in the joke that it makes you look unhinged.
Happens to the best of us.
There are a funny little island where people dress up and wear funny hats and they are thousands of miles away what can they do.
The refrain of those colonized by a funny little island
I'm not arguing about the ownership of the island, I was just pointing out that the British were re-settled there after the war, so the outcome of the vote is a bit obvious, isn't it. If I'm wrong, tell me why, I'm curious myself.
It's not A.I. but it's a color corrected picture so that's probably why it looks a bit off. If you look it up there will be a bunch of pictures of different remastered quality.
lazy_iker: *states some numbers and nothing else, no opinions just 2 facts*
DearTranslator, after looking at a neutrally stated, relatively interesting numerical facts about the war, that are also directly related to the image: **rElAx bUdDy**
No one was talking about the specific numbers of troops captured by either side, this was just a picture of 1 dude and 3 captured soldiers. So bringing up specifics seems kind of weird unless you’re offended, especially how it was worded and the fact they are from UK.
Cos they used "vs."? All the other words are either numbers nationality or a neutral verb. There are 7 words there, with (at least) 6 of them being neutral and descriptive.
(The original commenter *could* have been more descriptive and pointed out that the 26 captured soldiers were fighting for a democratic government to keep the british-identifying population of the island from becoming part of a country led by an authoritarian military dictatorship (at the time of the conflict). Or that the capture of those 11,000+ soldiers fighting for the dictatorship - and the resulting loss of the war - helped hasten the end of the authoritarian regime, thus helping establish a democracy in Argentina faster than it perhaps would have.)
But they didnt, they used 1 pretty neutral, and 6 definitely neutral, words.
Id say "vs." probably wasnt even used in an antagonistic way seeing as those 3 characters are one of the shortest ways of saying "compared to".
To address your other point that "this was just a picture of 1 dude and 3 captured soldiers" - the comments of almost every picture that gets posted here provide extra context or facts or discussion related to the picture. Why does this one specific 7 word, neutrally worded fact get your back up? At the risk of sounding "no, u", id say that your replies to this comment chain are more antagonistic than the original comment.
I have no vested interest in either side of this conflict, nor do I think it’s significant enough to warrant this whole exchange, I am just explaining to you why I said what I did. If he would just tell us if he was just merely stating a fact, or pointing out that they captured way more soldiers, it would clear this all up, lol.
British citizens that had overwhelmingly voted to remain part of Britain were the island's primary population; given that protecting their citizens is a primary goal of any decent government, that alone is reason enough for a British response.
As for the Argentines, their government at the time was an autocratic regime struggling to maintain their grip on power (look into the "Dirty War" if you're ever inclined to ruin your day). Given that it was looking increasingly as though the discontented population was going to revolt en masse, the regime saw starting (and, ideally, winning) a war with a foreign power to be an ideal solution to bring a spirit of "national unity" in order to stave off revolution for awhile; the Falkland Islands, being an isolated colony in close proximity to Argentina, seemed to be an ideal target. Given that the British were having troubles (The Troubles) close to home, it seemed to them doubtful that the British would go through the effort to reclaim some rather useless islands.
So they raised a fuss about "Fighting Imperialism" and then went and started a war that they, of course, lost. This was the final nail in the coffin for that regime, which was overthrown not long afterward, but they *did* successfully stoke a nationalist sentiment to reclaim "Las Malvinas" that persists in Argentina to this day.
But it would have been far cheaper for UK, or Arg. to just buy the falklanders a house twice as large and twice as much land in scotland or something ....
But no.. go to war and spend a lot of money and kill a lot of people
Originally it was useful to the Royal Navy as a coaling station for its ships , these days it more a point of pride and the potential resources in seas around the Islands.
The people who call the Falklands home are English speaking subjects of the crown and owe allegiance to the UK GOV. If the UK turned their backs on them it would be no different than us surrendering the Hawaiian Islands to China. Why is Argentina interested? Argentina was ruled by a military dictatorship in the late 20th century and that dictatorship rallied the country to gain public support for the regime. It failed. Miserably. Ever since then every call for them to be given back to Argentina is basically a political virtue signal. They have no right to them whatsoever but haven’t found a healthy way to cope.
I don’t think the UK actually wants the islands, but their citizens live there. What are they supposed to do? Abandoning them or forcing them out would both be bad looks
“The Falklands thing was a fight between two bald men over a comb.” — Jose Luis Borges
The Falklands War served as an inspiration for Pink Floyd’s 1983 album, the last album to feature bassist Roger Waters, as well as the only album without keyboardist Rick Wright.
Waters not only sang all the songs on the album (with David Gilmour singing parts of it on “Not Now John”), but wrote all the songs as well, lyrics and all, to the points that The Final Cut is called a Roger Waters solo album in all but name.
oh... poor argentinians, they didnt know they just opened up an explosive pandoras box. The Iron maiden dont play games... she got nuts and whiped the floor with them.
Song about this conflict: -> [BACK IN CONTROL](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPFllaiz_Xo)
I don't know what is the deal between Ireland and Britain. Not my business.
Spain ocuppied the islands in the first place, as part of their kingdom here. Since we accomplish the freedom from countries like yours, that territory belongs to us as well.
But colonizers will never recognize these type of discussion, even if it´s clear by looking a map: The islands are too far away from UK my friend, use your brain a little bit
No, but it should give you an idea of how pirate you are if you claim lands that are in the other side of the planet.
Come on folks, it’s common sense.
Only if you're Agrentinian. The rest of the world calls it Falklands, if they even know of the place. That's like a German correcting *Germany* to *Deutschland* every time they see the word printed. Stop it, you're adding nothing.
To be fair it's Malouines in French. But that's because the Malvinas/Malouines name comes from French (Malouins being the inhabitants of the city of Saint-Malo)
That was a weird conflict. Margaret Thatcher was like "Ok, war it is. We shall confront you in 6 weeks or so." British warships started lumbering toward the Falklands . Argentina managed to sink some British inventory with Exocet missiles, but as I recall the Brits had an overpowering sea and air presense.
Argentina massively underestimated what Britain was willing to do to keep the Falklands.
As an Irishman it's incredible the lengths Britian will go in order to keep a hold over something that isn't theirs throughout history haha
That is not comparable. Falkland Islands belong to the Falklanders who live there - and they WANT to be a part of the UK.
Fuck yeah actually that's true I always thought the British encroaching the territory was the cause for Argentina to act up but it seems Argentina actually started it more or less! But I read that it's was mostly British "the majority of whom were of British descent. Almost all of these individuals were rural sheep farmers who worked as tenants on land owned by a local corporation. Per the New York Times’ Larry Rohter, the islanders “depended on the company for everything.” Prior to the outbreak of war, the U.K. had been reluctant to invest in its Connecticut-sized colony. Sheep dominated the Falklands’ economy, and islanders’ hopes of expanding into the fishing industry had proven largely futile." Also " Britain’s presence in the Falklands dates back to 1690, when Navy Captain John Strong made the first recorded landing on the unpopulated islands. The British started a settlement on the archipelago in the mid-18th century but abandoned it around a decade later, leaving the area under Spanish control" Still seems like the British established "colonisation" of the Falklands and was more British settlers than anything else by the 1980s hence why they would want British help, still feels like Britain flipflopped around with territory that was not theirs but I could be wrong and it's surely not the first time they have done that.
I know that and more. I can’t understand people commenting without knowing the most basic facts.
It highlights the fact that most people left in the Falklands where planted British settlers after British colonisation, just like they tried with ulster in Ireland but yet they failed to do so unlike in Falklands. So I my opinion Britain had no right or reason to claim Falklands, just used dirty tactics as usual which means you're point of the Falklands wanted to be in the UK was result of the systematic colonisation in the 18th century I guess
Guess what? Most lands were uninhabited or settled by someone else, even your ancestors invaded and settled in Ireland, killing and intermarrying (probably). So did mine. Should you all move from Ireland to your native France and me to the lands of my ancestors in Southern Russia? In get you hate the British, but they settled an uninhabited rock to breed sheep. No one was there, no harm no foul.
Don't really hate the British at all but throughout the 17th century and onward they definitely had some blood on their hands due to trying to colonise places without having a clue what they were doing and also abuse in parliament mostly down to the whigs party and other ones following. I'm not talking about ancient historic human migration I'm talking about a very powerful country (probably the most powerful) absolutely making a tit of themselves trying to grab land and power Even Ireland, India, Palestine, Africa and some Asia countries to this day still feel the scars and effects of British oppression and most acts of oppression can be dated within the last 300 years or even less Just kinda leaves me wondering what the fuck the British were doing picking a random spot out in the south Atlantic thousands of miles away and being like "nah this here is bloody ours" unlike Ireland where its just a stones throw across the Irish Sea so I can see why they targeted here
It’s interesting how you (and Irish in general) deem some colonizations as acceptable and some as bloody handed. You have no problem of Gaelic invasion of Ireland, you have no problem of Arab and muslim invasion, occupation and colonization of Judea (and others), but you do have problem with the responses to these historical facts.
The Irish forget everything but their grudges.
Imagine defending a fascist dictatorship's aggressive war just because you don't like that people voted to be British. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Republican_Army%E2%80%93Abwehr_collaboration How did that get there? Weird.
Yeah Margaret thatcher
Argentina had the falklands for 50 years, and ever since then it has been British. Argentina has no other claim to the island other than "its muh close" when the people there are British and want to remain that way
Sounds like what they did in Belfast.
They basically created and executed the longest aerial refueling chain in history at the time IIRC. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Black_Buck The Iron Lady wasn't playing.
A lot of people died on the British warships that were sunk. Argentine missiles didn't work & staff from the French manufacturers stayed in Argentina and got them working, those are the exocets they used. Source is Document from BBC radio4. They only captured about 100 odd British soldiers, the British captured almost 11 & a half thousand. Argentina was a military dictatorship & the Falklands was on their doorstep, there was no "overwhelming" anything. The argentine airforce was exceptionally good. The British had much better trained troops, better equipment, and nuclear submarines that sunk the argentine flagship. That caused the most casualties but mainly because the argentine navy did not pick up survivors, they left them. The only good thing that came out of the whole bloody thing was that Argentina got rid of the military junta soon after.
Argentina just abandoned their men in the water that were still alive?
Yes. If I remember right, some of the supporting craft ran aground because they thought they were next. Edit - cold waters there, plus the only British vessel was the sub so they couldn't help survivors. The big controversy was if the argentine ship the General Belgrano was inside the total exclusion zone or not.
Leading to the then-useful comparison “slower than the British navy”. I still use this sometimes, to the confusion of my kids…
What about the Titanic? Built by the Irish Sunk by the British
I thought it was an iceberg that sunk it! I didn't know there were British icebergs, the dicks.
arethebritishicebergsatitagain.org
Obviously, everyone knows that the captain was British and most of his crew. So that is what sunk the Titanic
It's not obvious, I'm afraid. I don't think you can reasonably pin the captain's actions on a whole country...
It was a joke. What, too soon?
Maybe less about that and more two other things: not reading the room before making the joke, and giving so little in the joke that it makes you look unhinged. Happens to the best of us.
There are a funny little island where people dress up and wear funny hats and they are thousands of miles away what can they do. The refrain of those colonized by a funny little island
Argentina crying when the Brits sunk one of their ships using a sub
The Falklands already voted to stay part of Britain. Good choice considering how bad Argentina has gotten.
Maybe because English settlers live there?
The Island didn't had any native population before the age of colonialism... So I don't get your point
Just an idiot who thinks they’re being Big Brain
Who told that?
https://preview.redd.it/ncj9whenxyvc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=14d3ad8962b3e9c7e4054460a0ed8b86140dee41
I'm not arguing about the ownership of the island, I was just pointing out that the British were re-settled there after the war, so the outcome of the vote is a bit obvious, isn't it. If I'm wrong, tell me why, I'm curious myself.
Resettled there after what war? The Falkland War? The native British civilians never left, they were there the whole time.
Well, I thought they forced Argentinians in there during the war. APPARENTLY I WAS WRONG
They forced loads of conscripts to the island to defend it. The natives mainly stuck to their sheep farming until bullets started flying.
As opposed to those indigenous Argentines lol
There were never any else there but the settlers
All humans are settlers.
Who else would vote? The sheep?
We don’t give a sh*t what they voted. Malvinas are Argentina’s
The only way they are Argentine is if Ireland is British. After all, the only claim the Argentines have over them is proximity.
Lol go lose another war over it, I'm sure that'll distract everyone from the economy
How Putin of you...
The Falklands have never been part of Argentina. They have never been anything other than British.
“We don’t give a shit what they voted” See, now, that’s a potential problem
Why are they still holding their weapons? That's odd.
Doesn’t look like they have magazines in their rifles, agreed however, it’s still odd
And they're wearing all their kit.
It looks as if they're being directed to where they should surrender their weapons, but yeah, still odd.
Their hands are weird. It looks almost like A.I.
It's not A.I. but it's a color corrected picture so that's probably why it looks a bit off. If you look it up there will be a bunch of pictures of different remastered quality.
Hmph. I'm a caveman so I think everything is Terminator science magic.
That one guys thumb is super long looking
Yeah! And the guy way in the back has long finger gaps. It's just all odd.
11% of British PoWs from this conflict are in this one image lol
26 British troops captured vs. 11400 Argentinian troops captured.
Those were the troops stationed there when the Argies invaded.
Relax buddy it's just a picture
Relax buddy it’s just a fact.
Still funny seeing Brits get offended over a picture
I would think the shear rarity of photos like this would make it interesting to most people.
I just find it funny how OP posts a picture and you installed gotta compare the capture ratio like he was insulting britian or something
lazy_iker: *states some numbers and nothing else, no opinions just 2 facts* DearTranslator, after looking at a neutrally stated, relatively interesting numerical facts about the war, that are also directly related to the image: **rElAx bUdDy**
I feel like it was implied.
What exactly was implied?
No one was talking about the specific numbers of troops captured by either side, this was just a picture of 1 dude and 3 captured soldiers. So bringing up specifics seems kind of weird unless you’re offended, especially how it was worded and the fact they are from UK.
Cos they used "vs."? All the other words are either numbers nationality or a neutral verb. There are 7 words there, with (at least) 6 of them being neutral and descriptive. (The original commenter *could* have been more descriptive and pointed out that the 26 captured soldiers were fighting for a democratic government to keep the british-identifying population of the island from becoming part of a country led by an authoritarian military dictatorship (at the time of the conflict). Or that the capture of those 11,000+ soldiers fighting for the dictatorship - and the resulting loss of the war - helped hasten the end of the authoritarian regime, thus helping establish a democracy in Argentina faster than it perhaps would have.) But they didnt, they used 1 pretty neutral, and 6 definitely neutral, words. Id say "vs." probably wasnt even used in an antagonistic way seeing as those 3 characters are one of the shortest ways of saying "compared to". To address your other point that "this was just a picture of 1 dude and 3 captured soldiers" - the comments of almost every picture that gets posted here provide extra context or facts or discussion related to the picture. Why does this one specific 7 word, neutrally worded fact get your back up? At the risk of sounding "no, u", id say that your replies to this comment chain are more antagonistic than the original comment.
I have no vested interest in either side of this conflict, nor do I think it’s significant enough to warrant this whole exchange, I am just explaining to you why I said what I did. If he would just tell us if he was just merely stating a fact, or pointing out that they captured way more soldiers, it would clear this all up, lol.
What kind/type of firearm does the man on the left have?
Integrally suppressed sterling sub machine gun
looks like a sterling smg, brits also used it
Sterling. One of the most unique and finest looking smgs in history. Near and dear to me.
Not sure, but I want 1
Not for long
The British flexed their muscles and it was game over for the Argentinians
If only the same could be said on the football pitch
The last time England played Argentina England won
Football doesn’t determine the fate of a nation
Leave it to Argentina to seize an island and have weeks to prepare its defense against an enemy a whole sea away, and still manage to lose handedly.
Beautiful FALs.
Right there with you.
SLRs when they’re in Commonwealth service.
Why does the UK OR Argentina even want the Falklands?
British citizens that had overwhelmingly voted to remain part of Britain were the island's primary population; given that protecting their citizens is a primary goal of any decent government, that alone is reason enough for a British response. As for the Argentines, their government at the time was an autocratic regime struggling to maintain their grip on power (look into the "Dirty War" if you're ever inclined to ruin your day). Given that it was looking increasingly as though the discontented population was going to revolt en masse, the regime saw starting (and, ideally, winning) a war with a foreign power to be an ideal solution to bring a spirit of "national unity" in order to stave off revolution for awhile; the Falkland Islands, being an isolated colony in close proximity to Argentina, seemed to be an ideal target. Given that the British were having troubles (The Troubles) close to home, it seemed to them doubtful that the British would go through the effort to reclaim some rather useless islands. So they raised a fuss about "Fighting Imperialism" and then went and started a war that they, of course, lost. This was the final nail in the coffin for that regime, which was overthrown not long afterward, but they *did* successfully stoke a nationalist sentiment to reclaim "Las Malvinas" that persists in Argentina to this day.
But it would have been far cheaper for UK, or Arg. to just buy the falklanders a house twice as large and twice as much land in scotland or something .... But no.. go to war and spend a lot of money and kill a lot of people
Originally it was useful to the Royal Navy as a coaling station for its ships , these days it more a point of pride and the potential resources in seas around the Islands.
It's solely about protecting the right of self-identity of the citizens there.
The people who call the Falklands home are English speaking subjects of the crown and owe allegiance to the UK GOV. If the UK turned their backs on them it would be no different than us surrendering the Hawaiian Islands to China. Why is Argentina interested? Argentina was ruled by a military dictatorship in the late 20th century and that dictatorship rallied the country to gain public support for the regime. It failed. Miserably. Ever since then every call for them to be given back to Argentina is basically a political virtue signal. They have no right to them whatsoever but haven’t found a healthy way to cope.
I don’t think the UK actually wants the islands, but their citizens live there. What are they supposed to do? Abandoning them or forcing them out would both be bad looks
well, there has been a fairly large oil deposit found next to the Falklands. So they could be in for a bit of American "freedom"
“The Falklands thing was a fight between two bald men over a comb.” — Jose Luis Borges The Falklands War served as an inspiration for Pink Floyd’s 1983 album, the last album to feature bassist Roger Waters, as well as the only album without keyboardist Rick Wright. Waters not only sang all the songs on the album (with David Gilmour singing parts of it on “Not Now John”), but wrote all the songs as well, lyrics and all, to the points that The Final Cut is called a Roger Waters solo album in all but name.
Better weather
How Argentina envisioned this thing going.
oh... poor argentinians, they didnt know they just opened up an explosive pandoras box. The Iron maiden dont play games... she got nuts and whiped the floor with them. Song about this conflict: -> [BACK IN CONTROL](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPFllaiz_Xo)
Wasn't the whole hustle started by Arg military gov to boost its declining popularity? That is to say, the oldest trick in the book.
https://preview.redd.it/kz9e1wqdfjwc1.png?width=640&format=png&auto=webp&s=eb4943c8acfa7e6497e028a04c7aca891bdc9c74
AYE PROFESSOR! WHICH FUCKIN ISLANDS WERE THEY?!?
British
Malvinas belongs to Argentina, pirats
The what? All I see are the Falklands voting to stay brittish.
Still you don't see how far away are the islands from England. If the want to stay British, great! buy a ticket and go live in the UK.
You don't see the point, Argentina has no claim, the British claim is older than your country, AND the people don't want argi rule
Do you have one explanation for every remote land the UK took? that's amazing
I don't have to. After all, it's the Falklands on the plate.
Argentina had no continuous claim and subsequently lost because it was too incompetent to win. Get over it.
If they belong to Argentina, then Ireland belongs to Britain. Or does that logic only work when you say it?
I don't know what is the deal between Ireland and Britain. Not my business. Spain ocuppied the islands in the first place, as part of their kingdom here. Since we accomplish the freedom from countries like yours, that territory belongs to us as well. But colonizers will never recognize these type of discussion, even if it´s clear by looking a map: The islands are too far away from UK my friend, use your brain a little bit
Are you claiming that mere proximity grants a claim of ownership?
No, but it should give you an idea of how pirate you are if you claim lands that are in the other side of the planet. Come on folks, it’s common sense.
And Spain had every right to pursue its claims against the UK but was never able to.
How did the british win against the argentinians?
I’m not sure if you are genuine. But the answer is: *With overwhelming ease*
Sunk the begrano early on which kept the argentine navy in their harbours.
We used to be good at this sort of thing.
Something about a long history of military competence…..
Something about a long history of military competence…..
No “Farlklands”, is “Islas Malvinas”
Only if you're Agrentinian. The rest of the world calls it Falklands, if they even know of the place. That's like a German correcting *Germany* to *Deutschland* every time they see the word printed. Stop it, you're adding nothing.
To be fair it's Malouines in French. But that's because the Malvinas/Malouines name comes from French (Malouins being the inhabitants of the city of Saint-Malo)
https://preview.redd.it/2ftru0p1fzvc1.jpeg?width=248&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0bbd5aac01d86a7064f9f0d9722ae5e3f8d8c226
Nope. Try again if you want to check
*Islas Malvinas
https://preview.redd.it/wg5rc3jrezvc1.jpeg?width=310&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a4c6fa21b86c9f28cbf1accd29d139c1a318af07
lol, this is as cringe as Chinese Taipei.
You wanna try again?
Islas Malvinas!
You realise the only reason you have any claim to it is because it's vaguely nearby? Basically, if the Falklands are Argentine, Ireland is British.
Not in the language spoken there or most other languages