To not understand why some Argentinians seem to want the Falkland Islands so much?

It was originally a spat between Spain and England in origin

England because at the time the uk didn’t exist either

I think the British claimed the Falklands before Argentina even existed as a country, so I am not quite sure where the talk of wanting them back comes from.

Britain spent the best part of the 70s trying to get rid of the Falklands.

Oil and gas isn't just why Argentina want it. It was also why the UK was prepared to defend it back in 1982. The island was positioned as being important economically in terms of shipping, natural resources (oil and gas fields that were believed to be there) and access to the antarctic. And not just for the sea lion fields.

The Antarctic treaty currently makes geography irrelevant, but historically, geographic proximity has been vital to claims for natural resources and the immense wealth in oil and gas believed to be under the antarctic makes the Falklands a hugely important safety net for the UK.

In short, we don't. They're expensive to administer and there's little there for the UK to have and hold. There was talk of ceding them to Argentina in the late 1960s and even as recently as 1980 there was a leaseback option discussed with Argentina too.

However, all that is irrelevant when the Falkland Islanders wish to remain British. Britain's claim to them (1765) predating Spain's involvement in them helps too as a backup reason.

Argentina only ever brings up the Falklands/Malvinas when their is economic strife and unrest at home. It works as a distraction and to stir up some patriotic fervour. You can throw in the antics of the Argentina national team at the recent World Cup for making it a talking point again. Cristina Fernández de Kirchner rattled the sabre about it when she was President and Milei is doing the same.

Give it time and it'll settle down again until Argentina lurches to another domestic crisis.

Agree, and despite a supposed high level of intellect there has been no answer to the question of who first used lethal force in 82..

Well the answer is Argentinian Special Forces during the asault on Moody Brook barracks on the morning their invasion started...and I don't think anyone has ever bought into some later claims that "we were only using tear gas".

It’s an easy external distraction - “look at that ‘problem’ over there, and don’t focus on all the domestic issues we’re doing nothing about.”

It worked for the Junta, it works for the current Argentinian Government and it worked for Thatcher! If she hadn’t had the war (or if we’d not managed to wrest the islands back) she was heading for election defeat.

That's easy - invite them back to their home country ! Of course those who speak Spanish may not want to come, but they should still give them to option.
Cymru am byth !

There will never be an apology from the British Government for a conflict that started when the Argentine troops landed on a British Oveaseas Territory with no warning and attempted to subjugate the local population (who await to remain British) at the point of a gun.
Never.
To suggest that one may be forthcoming is as offensive as it is delusional.
If Argentina had wanted to keep its young men safe, it should not have launched the invasion, it is harsh, but it is the truth.

The Malvinas, as the Argentinians call the Islands, are even mentioned in their national anthem.

National anthems originate from all kinds of historical political beliefs and battles. They're a strong statement of feeling (of the powerful) at the point in history when they were written, but that doesn't make them fact or international law, or even necessarily historically accurate.

Although we don't sing that verse now, the UK anthem still officially condones crushing 'rebellious Scots'. Should we slap down any genuine desire amongst Scottish people to seek potential independence in a grown-up way by referring them to the national anthem, declaring them officially 'rebellious' and thus soundly overruling them?

Also, if Charles had died from illness or an accident before 1982, we would now officially be declaring 'King Andrew' as gracious and noble, and earnestly desiring him to be victorious and live a long life ruling over us all.

The Dutch national anthem honours the King of Spain - so by the same token, surely the Netherlands should be 'given back' to Spain?!

I wonder how many of those children are desperate to leave the Argentina as they currently know it and move to the islands and live there? How are their lives currently adversely affected by the territory being British, as according to the express wishes of the people who DO live there?

It's just propaganda; remember: claimed (but not actual) victimhood can be a very powerful weapon. They only want it because they want Britain not to have it. I'm struggling to see much difference between them and the huge landowners with thousands and thousands of (unused, fallow) acres, whose only real desire in owning them is so that they can slip it into conversation how many thousands of acres they own!

If you want to use NI as an analogy, which you shouldn't, the Argentinians in 1982 were the invaders, akin to British settlement in Ireland. Except they lost.

To add to that, Scotland invaded NI in 1315, and were eventually beaten back.

For some reason, this doesn't seem to be widely taught in Ireland, or Scotland for that matter.

The Millwall of countries!

And whatever should we do about Patagonia: the only official Welsh-speaking community in the world outside of the British Isles?!

If you looked at a map, then you'll have noticed that the Falklands are about 2000km from Buenos Aires. About the same distance as Sicily is from London. They have also never belonged to Argentina and are inhabited by British citizens who have no desire to be Argentinian.

@MyrtleLion

The war cost a fortune, but British forces were overwhelmingly better trained, paid and resourced than Argentina so it wasn't really in doubt that we would win.

My emphasis on the last bit....

The general public and some in Fleet Street might have thought that but many in the Forces had at least a few doubts...just one look at a map of the world was enough to raise a few eyebrows.

It turned out to be a mighty close run thing, and if the Argentine Navy and Army had showed the determination their Air Force and Naval Air Arm did the end result would probably have been very different.

It's really easy to look at a world map and just decide to ignore cultures, histories, the will of the population and national sovereignties by lumping them in together and 'giving' one country/territory to another country, based on them being 'only' a few hundred miles away.

When are people going to start demanding that New Zealand be 'given back' to Australia?!

Going to extremes, what about the uncontacted peoples whose lands look like they 'should' belong to the large countries that are closest to them? Should India invade North Sentinel island and take it 'back', or should they do what they currently do: accept that they want self-rule and leave them to it?

Ironically, if the would-be annexers really believe in ignoring ethnic groups, cultures, communities and history and just want to 're-allocate' the world based on populations, the British people would end up with a vastly larger piece of land than we currently have. Putin and Trump probably wouldn't be too chuffed with the result either...

In the early 1980s the UK and Argentinian governments were in diplomatic talks to hand the Falklands over to Argentina. It cost a fortune to support the Islands and at that time the natural deposits were unknown.

Then Galtieri invaded. Talks continued but Thatcher was desperately unpopular in the polls and sending the taskforce was a show of strength. The war cost a fortune, but British forces were overwhelmingly better trained, paid and resourced than Argentina so it wasn't really in doubt that we would win.

The conflict breached parliamentary rules about needing a vote before going to war so it was called a conflict rather than a war.

The only question was how many British deaths would acceptable to the public.

Britain was victorious, Thatcher won a landslide in 1983 and now it costs a tonne more money than before.

The Malvinas, as the Argentinians call the Islands, are even mentioned in their national anthem.

Politically it will be impossible to hand the islands to Argentina but potentially a joint agreement could be made.

The oil and gas might have only been found in 2010, but the geology of the sea floor indicated there may be oil there, which was certainly known about in the 1980s

Err noooo.

Great Britain should go the whole hog and throw out everyone except the Welsh who were descendants of the original Ancient Britains.

Rwy'n gobeithio y bydd y ddraig goch yn troethi ar eich coelcerth !

Do you care at all about the wishes of people? Because handing land 'back', without thinking about the people is properly batshit. Plus Argentina wasn't indigenous there. No one was.

According to some logic on this thread, the US shoould send all its population back to the countries if their ancestors, just leaving the Native Americans.
And Australia. Canada. South Africa. Actually, Argentina as well.

The only people who deserve to decide are the people who live there.

It's also a good staging point to get to Antarctica.

It's history fighting geography.

I can understand people initially assuming this is the usual model of Europeans booting out the natives and nicking the land. There's plenty of that about, after all. If you've not looked it up, it's a reasonable guess. But it's less obvious why there's an assumption that the settler colonialist state on the other side of the argument would have any kind of moral claim on the land.