World News

38188 readers

1978 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]

Recommendations

How to spot Misinformation and Propaganda

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

450

Falkland's sovereignty 'not up for discussion' Britain warns after new Argentinian president vows to 'get them back' (www.lbc.co.uk)

submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

330 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 14 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Another reply here covers this well..

"The link literally shows Argentina made the claim after the British.

The island has voted numerous times they prefer to remain part of Britain.

Twice the Argentine government has declined the UK's offer to have the matter of sovereignty heard by the International Court of Justice.

Instead they choose to START a war over it.

Just stop already. For some reason this topic is a brain worm for Argentinians. You all go batshit over it and lose all reason and perspective."

[+] [email protected] -13 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

"The link literally shows Argentina made the claim after the British.

The Spanards lay a claim before that, and Argentina claims them based on inheriting them when they won their independence from Spain.

The island has voted numerous times they prefer to remain part of Britain.

Has nothing to do with the rights of the countries. Russia took over land from Ukraine, put people in there, and then held an election where the people stated they want to be with Russia. Doesn't make that vote right or legal.

Twice the Argentine government has declined the UK’s offer to have the matter of sovereignty heard by the International Court of Justice.

[Citation Required]

Also, the UN has made a declaration that Great Britain should negotiate return the islands to Argentina.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_502

Instead they choose to START a war over it.

I ain't defending this one, it was done for Argentinian political b.s. reasons. But it doesn't mean that the clain is b.s., just the stupid war they started.

But having said that, how long would any nation on this Earth wait to get land back that they believed are theirs? If China took Hawaii or the Catalina Islands off the coast of California, would the US just wait indefinately to resolve the issue diplomatically?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

United Nations Security Council Resolution 502 was a resolution adopted by the United Nations Security Council on 3 April 1982. After expressing its concern at the invasion of the Falkland Islands by the armed forces of Argentina, the council demanded an immediate cessation of hostilities between Argentina and the United Kingdom and a complete withdrawal by Argentine forces. The council also called on the governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom to seek a diplomatic solution to the situation and refrain from further military action.

The resolution by the British representative, Ambassador Sir Anthony Parsons,[1] was adopted by 10 votes in favour (France, United Kingdom, United States, Zaire, Guyana, Ireland, Japan, Jordan, Togo and Uganda) to 1 against (Panama) with four abstentions (China, Poland, Spain and the Soviet Union).[2]

Resolution 502 was in the United Kingdom's favour by giving it the option to invoke Article 51 of the United Nations Charter and to claim the right of self-defence. It was supported by members of the Commonwealth and by the European Economic Community, which later imposed sanctions on Argentina.

Do you not realise that you linked to a resolution that says pretty much exactly the opposite of what you said? That was a resolution put forward by the UK which demands Argentina leave the Falkands and was passed with only Panama voting against it

[–] [email protected] -3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Do you not realise that you linked to a resolution that says pretty much exactly the opposite of what you said?

I do, and as I've already stated, I was against the fighting.

Having said that, stopping a fight vote is not the same thing as voting on who owns a piece of land.

That same article talks about negotiations that should be had instead...

The council also called on the governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom to seek a diplomatic solution to the situation and refrain from further military action.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

Yes, it was a "fuck off and then we'll talk" demand. As Argentina had to be kicked out by force they didn't get to negotiate.