The Falklands have been reinvaded!

7 May 2012

Quote by Max777

I appologise, I didn't realise it was different when Rooney embarrasses the nation and Sport with his private life and when the captain of the Argentine Hockey Team embarasses the nation and the sport by bringing it into disrepute making false statements (we train on Argentine Soil) creating dissent and using it to promote political views, I thought that was all the same but I appologise for my error you are of course absolutely right, it is different and we should despise British Athletes and sportsman simply because they are British

Has the Argentine hockey team captain embarrassed the nation? I wouldn't have thought that the Argentine man in the street would have been particularly embarrassed by it.
It would appear that this was a privately made ad which was first offered to private companies who all preferred to stay away from the controversial video. It was then brought to the attention of President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, who bought it and broadcast it
Did he make false statements or were the false statements made by the advertising team that made the ad, Young and Rubicam. Young and Rubicam just happen to be owned by British advertising company WPP so I would have thought somebody somewhere down the line has had his/her arse severely kicked.
I don't understand and I really do want to agree with you, I mean I understand that the advertising company may have added the "we train on Argentine soild to compete on British Soil" statement but did I get it wrong, was it the advertising company employees using a British War memorial as a traing tool ?
I don't expect you to agree with me.
There is footage of someone's feet stepping on some steps which we are informed is a WW1 war memorial. Every weekend kids in Newcastle congregate around Eldon Square, skate boarding and sitting on the steps of a war memorial. Is that desecration? I suspect there are similar occurrences all around the UK on a daily/weekly basis.
Ahh so we are now questioning wether it was indeed the foot of the athlete or a nasty smear campaign by the British Advertising Company using one of thier own feet, fair point, as someone pointed out earlier, there is a difference between showing respect, disregarding something which others believe should be shown respect and setting out to disrespect something, kinda like I the crossing the road is harmless crossing the road to kill someone is totally different, the same act can be seen in different ways, sitting on a war memorial is certainly disrespectfull but putting your feet on it to make a political statement is a desecration.
I have to admit if there was a smear campaign against me and someone portrayed me as doing something so distastefull as to desecrate a war memorial I would defend my honour with a statement to the media about the despicable actions of the British Media Company responsible, I notice that the athlete has made no such denial so I can be forgiven for my assumption that it was indeed his foot but appologise to him and to you for my error of judgement

7 May 2012

Quote by MidsCouple24
Extremist comments from one who likes to be controversial, no, he must be right, he says so. I agree with you Dave Notts, in future please note that I agree with anything and everything you say, you are a god amongst those that know everything and are always right, I respect you and your knowledge, your wisdom and your willingness to forgive all you choose to forgive and support you in anything you do, say or believe.

get over yourself mids.
your like a bloody dog with a bloody bone
instead of spitting your dummy out when peeple either disagree with you, or as is usually the case show facts that prove you wrong, you make childish comments like the one above. :doh:
you need to arguie with a bit more rationality if you want to debate with mr notts i can tell you that. :thumbup:

7 May 2012

Quote by MidsCouple24

I appologise, I didn't realise it was different when Rooney embarrasses the nation and Sport with his private life and when the captain of the Argentine Hockey Team embarasses the nation and the sport by bringing it into disrepute making false statements (we train on Argentine Soil) creating dissent and using it to promote political views, I thought that was all the same but I appologise for my error you are of course absolutely right, it is different and we should despise British Athletes and sportsman simply because they are British

Has the Argentine hockey team captain embarrassed the nation? I wouldn't have thought that the Argentine man in the street would have been particularly embarrassed by it.
It would appear that this was a privately made ad which was first offered to private companies who all preferred to stay away from the controversial video. It was then brought to the attention of President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, who bought it and broadcast it
Did he make false statements or were the false statements made by the advertising team that made the ad, Young and Rubicam. Young and Rubicam just happen to be owned by British advertising company WPP so I would have thought somebody somewhere down the line has had his/her arse severely kicked.
I don't understand and I really do want to agree with you, I mean I understand that the advertising company may have added the "we train on Argentine soild to compete on British Soil" statement but did I get it wrong, was it the advertising company employees using a British War memorial as a traing tool ?
I don't expect you to agree with me.
There is footage of someone's feet stepping on some steps which we are informed is a WW1 war memorial. Every weekend kids in Newcastle congregate around Eldon Square, skate boarding and sitting on the steps of a war memorial. Is that desecration? I suspect there are similar occurrences all around the UK on a daily/weekly basis.
Ahh so we are now questioning wether it was indeed the foot of the athlete or a nasty smear campaign by the British Advertising Company using one of thier own feet, fair point, as someone pointed out earlier, there is a difference between showing respect, disregarding something which others believe should be shown respect and setting out to disrespect something, kinda like I the crossing the road is harmless crossing the road to kill someone is totally different, the same act can be seen in different ways, sitting on a war memorial is certainly disrespectfull but putting your feet on it to make a political statement is a desecration.
I have to admit if there was a smear campaign against me and someone portrayed me as doing something so distastefull as to desecrate a war memorial I would defend my honour with a statement to the media about the despicable actions of the British Media Company responsible, I notice that the athlete has made no such denial so I can be forgiven for my assumption that it was indeed his foot but appologise to him and to you for my error of judgement
Who is "we"? I'm not questioning anything of the sort. I have seen no evidence that the athlete has made a statement regarding the despicable actions of a British Media company. Have you made that up?
How do you know that the athlete set out to disrespect the war memorial? He could have just been totally naive, just following directions. Maybe you should be venting your anger against the ad agency that made the video. You could always write to WPP.

7 May 2012

Quote by starlightcouple

Extremist comments from one who likes to be controversial, no, he must be right, he says so. I agree with you Dave Notts, in future please note that I agree with anything and everything you say, you are a god amongst those that know everything and are always right, I respect you and your knowledge, your wisdom and your willingness to forgive all you choose to forgive and support you in anything you do, say or believe.

get over yourself mids.
your like a bloody dog with a bloody bone
instead of spitting your dummy out when peeple either disagree with you, or as is usually the case show facts that prove you wrong, you make childish comments like the one above. :doh:
you need to arguie with a bit more rationality if you want to debate with mr notts i can tell you that. :thumbup:
You are right as always of course, but being a bit stupid can you show me the facts that have been shown to me and make them a little clearer, can you show me the FACT that it was not the athletes foot but somebody else's, can you show me the FACT that it was not turned into a propagand event by the athlete but by the film makers without his consent or knowledge, can you show me the FACT that it I did not watch the clip and only assumed he did not pretend to be a war vetran of the 1982 war as the commentry states, please please show me the FACTS that have been proved to me.

7 May 2012

Quote by MidsCouple24
You are right as always of course, but being a bit stupid can you show me the facts that have been shown to me and make them a little clearer, can you show me the FACT that it was not the athletes foot but somebody else's, can you show me the FACT that it was not turned into a propagand event by the athlete but by the film makers without his consent or knowledge, can you show me the FACT that it I did not watch the clip and only assumed he did not pretend to be a war vetran of the 1982 war as the commentry states, please please show me the FACTS that have been proved to me.

:sleeping::sleeping:
ooops sorry mids i dozed off there.
can you repeat that again. innocent

i think we should give it back to them anyway. british citizens on an island 8 thousand miles away. what nonsense to say it is ours. :twisted: whatever the history books might say.
long gone are the days where Britain were the most respected and feared nation on earth, who usually took without asking, NI being a case in point. It looked to me that he was merely running up and down the memorial and to be honest max and his replies seem to show the true actions of this episode. sorry mids but your just doing a usual rant my friend.

7 May 2012

from what i read i would say that france have the better legal rights over the falklands, followed by spain.
taking something by force nearly 200 years ago still does not make it the aggressors. back then though power was might and might was power, so britain with the power took it.
those islands should be handed back to the country that should have them, argentina and certainly not britain.

7 May 2012

Quote by starlightcouple
those islands should be handed back to the country that should have them, argentina and certainly not britain.

Based on that theory, Ireland should be handed back to Britain...
Utter nonsense star, and you know it.

7 May 2012

Quote by MidsCouple24

Extremist comments from one who likes to be controversial, no, he must be right, he says so. I agree with you Dave Notts, in future please note that I agree with anything and everything you say, you are a god amongst those that know everything and are always right, I respect you and your knowledge, your wisdom and your willingness to forgive all you choose to forgive and support you in anything you do, say or believe.

get over yourself mids.
your like a bloody dog with a bloody bone
instead of spitting your dummy out when peeple either disagree with you, or as is usually the case show facts that prove you wrong, you make childish comments like the one above. :doh:
you need to arguie with a bit more rationality if you want to debate with mr notts i can tell you that. :thumbup:
You are right as always of course, but being a bit stupid can you show me the facts that have been shown to me and make them a little clearer, can you show me the FACT that it was not the athletes foot but somebody else's, can you show me the FACT that it was not turned into a propagand event by the athlete but by the film makers without his consent or knowledge, can you show me the FACT that it I did not watch the clip and only assumed he did not pretend to be a war vetran of the 1982 war as the commentry states, please please show me the FACTS that have been proved to me.
Can you show me any facts to support YOUR viewpoint?

7 May 2012

Quote by GnV
Based on that theory, Ireland should be handed back to Britain...

you really should know your history of ireland GNV before making ludicrous assumptions.

Quote by GnV
Utter nonsense star, and you know it.

not at all GNV. over hundreds of years britain took/stole ( pick your chice ) islands through the power of the gun. history tells us this many times. many became part of the british commonwealth at that time.
in irelands case check the act of union of 1801
i was more refering to northern ireland in my comment anyway and not the whole of ireland :thumbup:

7 May 2012

Quote by Max777

Extremist comments from one who likes to be controversial, no, he must be right, he says so. I agree with you Dave Notts, in future please note that I agree with anything and everything you say, you are a god amongst those that know everything and are always right, I respect you and your knowledge, your wisdom and your willingness to forgive all you choose to forgive and support you in anything you do, say or believe.

get over yourself mids.
your like a bloody dog with a bloody bone
instead of spitting your dummy out when peeple either disagree with you, or as is usually the case show facts that prove you wrong, you make childish comments like the one above. :doh:
you need to arguie with a bit more rationality if you want to debate with mr notts i can tell you that. :thumbup:
You are right as always of course, but being a bit stupid can you show me the facts that have been shown to me and make them a little clearer, can you show me the FACT that it was not the athletes foot but somebody else's, can you show me the FACT that it was not turned into a propagand event by the athlete but by the film makers without his consent or knowledge, can you show me the FACT that it I did not watch the clip and only assumed he did not pretend to be a war vetran of the 1982 war as the commentry states, please please show me the FACTS that have been proved to me.
Can you show me any facts to support YOUR viewpoint?
Well yes, the foot is on the war memorial in the footage,
The footage does exist
The caption on the footage does say "training on Argentine soil to compete on British soil"
The footage does contain a commentry which states that the athlete entered the Falkland Islands to take part in a marthon incorporating ex Argentine and British war vetrans claiming to be a 1982 war vetran
Some people do find it offensive that the use of a war memorial as a training aid for someone to make a political point.
All I have said are FACTS that cannot be denied by a sane person, the facts I would like to see since the question of facts has been so emphasised are
Show me the fact that the foot does not belong to the argentine athlete in question
Show me the fact that I did not view the footage
Show me the fact that he did not claim to be a war vetran to gain entry
Show me the fact that it was the advertising agency and not him that turned it into a political gesture
Show me the fact that it was never his intention to do that and the reason why he allowed the footage to be shot in the first place
But well done for being so British and answering a question with a question wink

7 May 2012

Quote by an agitated star
those islands should be handed back to the country that should have them, argentina and certainly not britain.

But you missed the subtlety of the point star.
You glibly say that the Falkland Islands should be handed to the Argentinians (presumably because of their proximity to the Argentinian mainland, not because they truly have sovereign rights over them) so why is it so preposterous that Ireland should be handed to the British - or for that matter, the British Isles including Ireland to the French?
While we're at it, why not annexe the Japanese Islands to say, North Korea dunno

7 May 2012

Quote by GnV
those islands should be handed back to the country that should have them, argentina and certainly not britain.

But you missed the subtlety of the point star.
You glibly say that the Falkland Islands should be handed to the Argentinians (presumably because of their proximity to the Argentinian mainland, not because they truly have sovereign rights over them) so why is it so preposterous that Ireland should be handed to the British - or for that matter, the British Isles including Ireland to the French?
While we're at it, why not annexe the Japanese Islands to say, North Korea dunno

st
Malta needs to be given away as does Gibralter, both of which are claimed by nearby neighbours, any ozzies here want New Zealnd or Indonesia ?
Every inhabitant of the Falkland Islands would like to remain British and they have lived there for generations, no Argentinian has ever been refused the right to live on the Islands prior to 1982 but none chose to settle there, though prior to 1982 almost all trade the Islanders carried out was with Argentina. The Whaling station in South Gerogia was a British business enterprise, Argentina has never made any attempt to devlop islands or glaciers in the area other than making claims as to the ownership of the Falkland Islands and South Georgia amongst other places they claim to own in the area some of which are disputed by Chile.

7 May 2012

Quote by starlightcouple

Based on that theory, Ireland should be handed back to Britain...

you really should know your history of ireland GNV before making ludicrous assumptions.

Quote by GnV
Utter nonsense star, and you know it.

not at all GNV. over hundreds of years britain took/stole ( pick your chice ) islands through the power of the gun. history tells us this many times. many became part of the british commonwealth at that time.
in irelands case check the act of union of 1801
i was more refering to northern ireland in my comment anyway and not the whole of ireland :thumbup:
The day will come when Northern Ireland is ruled by Ireland as one country, personally I sympathise with those that wish to remain British and agree that whilst they are in the majority this should be so, but they will not always be the majority inhabitants of Northern Ireland and they have always said that when they are not they will respect the wishes of the majority, time will tell of course wether they honour that statement by thier leaders or not.

7 May 2012

I don't disagree with your view Mids.
Whilst it can be said that Northern Ireland was won by force, I'm not at all sure this was the case in the Falklands Islands as they were uninhabited when discovered.

7 May 2012

That is very true, I hope we do see a united Ireland and one won through the vote is far better than one won through war or terror.
The fact that the Falkland Islands was unihabited by any Nation and was available for colonisation give us far more claim to the Ireland than many countries can argue, for example the US was inhabited by the native Indian, Australia by the aboriginies, they may not have been the original people of the area but they did occupy it unlike the situation in the Falklands which nobody wanted but us. close proximity giving rightfull ownership has been rejected by Nations for longer than I can remember and all over the World there are Countries close to other Islands/areas that are ruled by different Nations with or without the consent of the neighbours or indiginous population, I am sure the Japanese would be upset if thier Islands were claimed by China.

7 May 2012

Quote by MidsCouple24
Well yes, the foot is on the war memorial in the footage,
The footage does exist
Would you have known that it was a war memorial without the commentry? I wouldn't and I guess that 99.9% of this country's population wouldn't.
The caption on the footage does say "training on Argentine soil to compete on British soil"
And?
The footage does contain a commentry which states that the athlete entered the Falkland Islands to take part in a marthon incorporating ex Argentine and British war vetrans claiming to be a 1982 war vetran
The commentry that you refer to does. This commentry was added by ITN News. Listen to the commentry on the BBC website. There is no mention of him pretending to be a war vetran. You have already ridiculed this notion anyway.

Some people do find it offensive that the use of a war memorial as a training aid for someone to make a political point.
I can understand that but see my comments above.
All I have said are FACTS that cannot be denied by a sane person, the facts I would like to see since the question of facts has been so emphasised are
Show me the fact that the foot does not belong to the argentine athlete in question
Show me the proof that it does.
Show me the fact that I did not view the footage
Who's disputing that you have seen the footage?
Show me the fact that he did not claim to be a war vetran to gain entry
Show me the proof that he did. Third party commentry does not count.
Show me the fact that it was the advertising agency and not him that turned it into a political gesture
Hmmm, now lets see. Who commissioned the ad? Who directed the ad? Who edited the ad? Who added the caption at the end? Who hawked the ad around various companies?Of course, the athlete may have commissioned, financed, directed and edited the ad himself. I suspect however that this is highly unlikely
Show me the fact that it was never his intention to do that and the reason why he allowed the footage to be shot in the first place
Show me the fact that it was his intention. He may have done it for the money, who knows?
But well done for being so British and answering a question with a question
It has nothing to do with being British. I am debating the subject with you. I am allowed to ask questions too?

7 May 2012

i found this one much nearer the truth

bolt

7 May 2012

Quote by Lizaleanrob
i found this one much nearer the truth

Very good Rob :thumbup:

7 May 2012

Quote by Max777
Well yes, the foot is on the war memorial in the footage,
The footage does exist
Would you have known that it was a war memorial without the commentry? I wouldn't and I guess that 99.9% of this country's population wouldn't.

Yes I would as I have paid my respects at this memorial in the past but do accept that most would not, however the point is that it was done not who would know about it and I am sure that those involved in the incident were aware of what they were doing and that in subsequent reports it would be highlighted as a war memorial.
The caption on the footage does say "training on Argentine soil to compete on British soil"
And?
And this is to provoke the Argentine and British public (for and against)
The footage does contain a commentry which states that the athlete entered the Falkland Islands to take part in a marthon incorporating ex Argentine and British war vetrans claiming to be a 1982 war vetran
The commentry that you refer to does. This commentry was added by ITN News. Listen to the commentry on the BBC website. There is no mention of him pretending to be a war vetran. You have already ridiculed this notion anyway.

Agreed but I was asked to provide proof that this statement was made and did so
Some people do find it offensive that the use of a war memorial as a training aid for someone to make a political point.
I can understand that but see my comments above.
and see mine, and if my comments were not true then we wouldn't be discussing who knows what it is.
All I have said are FACTS that cannot be denied by a sane person, the facts I would like to see since the question of facts has been so emphasised are
Show me the fact that the foot does not belong to the argentine athlete in question
Show me the proof that it does.

I cannot, but that was said because it was said that I had to provide facts that the foot belonged to the athlete, if I have prove it is the athlete then surely the person asking me to prove it should also prove it isn't !
Show me the fact that I did not view the footage
Who's disputing that you have seen the footage?
The person who said I was a fool to make a statement without viewing the footage, obviously he viewed the footage without the ITV commentry and assumed that what he viewed was gospel and did not have the statement about the athletes excuse for entering the islands, now if I am a fool for listening to the commentry surely he is a fool for saying it did not exist ?
Show me the fact that he did not claim to be a war vetran to gain entry
Show me the proof that he did. Third party commentry does not count.

See above, I was asked to prove he did not make the claim, according to ITV he did, now if a third party statement is not accepted I can live with that, but I could never then live with ANY statement made in the forums in future or past that has not been heard first hand from the person said to have made the statement, no longer could we discuss anything in the papers or on TV, U tube etc unless it is proved that the it is footage of the real person making the statement, that would end an awfull lot of discussions I think. If he did not make the statement why have there been no reports of him denying the accusation ?
Show me the fact that it was the advertising agency and not him that turned it into a political gesture
Hmmm, now lets see. Who commissioned the ad? Who directed the ad? Who edited the ad? Who added the caption at the end? Who hawked the ad around various companies?Of course, the athlete may have commissioned, financed, directed and edited the ad himself. I suspect however that this is highly unlikely
Show me the fact that it was never his intention to do that and the reason why he allowed the footage to be shot in the first place
Show me the fact that it was his intention. He may have done it for the money, who knows?
Thankyou for helping me prove my point, I made a statement based on what has been reported and was asked to back this up with proof of all of the above, now I can provide proof that the statements were reported but the only answer some people have is to "ask for proof that incidents reported actually took place so I simply asked for proof they didn't in absence of any defence or denial by the person accused of doing it.
But well done for being so British and answering a question with a question
It has nothing to do with being British. I am debating the subject with you. I am allowed to ask questions too?

Quite right, but if you are going to debate this with me you need to read back and see what questions/demands for proof I was answering and who asked for the proof.

7 May 2012

Quote by Lizaleanrob
i found this one much nearer the truth

Excellent - loved it

7 May 2012

Quote by MidsCouple24

Loads of stuff..........and
Quite right, but if you are going to debate this with me you need to read back and see what questions/demands for proof I was answering and who asked for the proof.

I think it's you that needs to go back and reread. I was answering the questions YOU asked of ME. You appear to be now arguing with yourself dunno

7 May 2012

Dave_Notts

7 May 2012

Quote by Max777

Loads of stuff..........and
Quite right, but if you are going to debate this with me you need to read back and see what questions/demands for proof I was answering and who asked for the proof.

I think it's you that needs to go back and reread. I was answering the questions YOU asked of ME. You appear to be now arguing with yourself dunno

Errrrrr no I answered your question re the foot ages ago this post was in answer to someone who asked me to provide proof of just about everything that has been reported in this matter.
here is our conversation
don't expect you to agree with me.
There is footage of someone's feet stepping on some steps which we are informed is a WW1 war memorial. Every weekend kids in Newcastle congregate around Eldon Square, skate boarding and sitting on the steps of a war memorial. Is that desecration? I suspect there are similar occurrences all around the UK on a daily/weekly basis.
Ahh so we are now questioning wether it was indeed the foot of the athlete or a nasty smear campaign by the British Advertising Company using one of thier own feet, fair point, as someone pointed out earlier, there is a difference between showing respect, disregarding something which others believe should be shown respect and setting out to disrespect something, kinda like I the crossing the road is harmless crossing the road to kill someone is totally different, the same act can be seen in different ways, sitting on a war memorial is certainly disrespectfull but putting your feet on it to make a political statement is a desecration.
I have to admit if there was a smear campaign against me and someone portrayed me as doing something so distastefull as to desecrate a war memorial I would defend my honour with a statement to the media about the despicable actions of the British Media Company responsible, I notice that the athlete has made no such denial so I can be forgiven for my assumption that it was indeed his foot but appologise to him and to you for my error of judgement

7 May 2012

Quote by Dave__Notts

Dave_Notts

:thumbup:

7 May 2012

Quote by GnV
You glibly say that the Falkland Islands should be handed to the Argentinians (presumably because of their proximity to the Argentinian mainland, not because they truly have sovereign rights over them) so why is it so preposterous that Ireland should be handed to the British - or for that matter, the British Isles including Ireland to the French?

certainly not agitated in any way GNV.
yes the falklands have argentina as the nearest country and it should rightfully be theres. the english were NOT the first inhabitants of the falklands, it would seem them old franchos were. the history of those islands is fascinating and i shall say once again that we have no right in 2012 to say we have those islands that are 8000 miles away. how does that make any logical sense. dunno

the other bits of your argument i do not understand the relevance to it.

Quote by GnV
While we're at it, why not annexe the Japanese Islands to say, North Korea :dunno:

why not bomb france and be done with those ignorant snivelling franchos? lol

7 May 2012

Just checked back Max and it was Dave_Notts who said I was foolish to talk about a clip I had not even watched, why your claiming to have said it I do not know

7 May 2012

Quote by MidsCouple24
Just checked back Max and it was Dave_Notts who said I was foolish to talk about a clip I had not even watched, why your claiming to have said it I do not know

:doh:

7 May 2012

I said you were foolish to not watch the film and then make claims that were not based on the film. This was in responce to you calling the organisers foolish for not checking his entry.
a) The original argentine film does not state at any time that the athelete was a war veteran.
b) To enter the race you do not need to be a veteran
c) At no time during the film did the athelete talk, let alone claim anything.
Unless there is any evidence to suggest he claimed he is a veteran? The only claim that did was the voice over on the ITN voiceover.
If there is any evidence that shows he claims to be a veteran, then I will admit I am wrong. Until that time, there has been nothing on this whole thread that shows he made such a claim.
Dave_Notts

7 May 2012

Quote by starlightcouple

You glibly say that the Falkland Islands should be handed to the Argentinians (presumably because of their proximity to the Argentinian mainland, not because they truly have sovereign rights over them) so why is it so preposterous that Ireland should be handed to the British - or for that matter, the British Isles including Ireland to the French?

certainly not agitated in any way GNV.
yes the falklands have argentina as the nearest country and it should rightfully be theres. the english were NOT the first inhabitants of the falklands, it would seem them old franchos were. the history of those islands is fascinating and i shall say once again that we have no right in 2012 to say we have those islands that are 8000 miles away. how does that make any logical sense. dunno

the other bits of your argument i do not understand the relevance to it.

Quote by GnV
While we're at it, why not annexe the Japanese Islands to say, North Korea :dunno:

why not bomb france and be done with those ignorant snivelling franchos? lol

errr if you look at a map of the world, you will see that Japan lies off the coast of North Korea (the Asian continent) which is it's nearest country... in just the same way The Falklands Islands lie of the coast of South America (where Argentina is) :doh:
Why be so disparaging about the French? It does smack of agitation as you are resorting to slagging people off in order to carry your point.

7 May 2012

The starnge thing in this thread, and others about the Falklands, is that we keep saying they were British and thats why we went to war.
An interesting bit of trivia is that the British Gov refused to allow the population British citizenship prior to 1982. Then after the war a piece of legislation came in so they could become citizens from 1983 onwards. Bolt the door after the horse has bolted springs to mind here.
Another bit of trivia is that Argentina has to make claims to the islands. If they stop, then under international law then the islands automatically belong to the other nation.
Dave_Notts