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

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?!

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.

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 !

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.

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".

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.

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.

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

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.

It was originally a spat between Spain and England in origin

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

Wilson’s government tried secret talks with Argentina but they leaked. Massive public and political opposition buried the idea immediately. Under Thatcher there was intermittent consideration of whether to hand over the Falklands but it never went anywhere.

So it’s completely misleading to say that “Britain” tried to “get rid” of the Falklands for much of the 70s or for much of any other period.

What, in the 1830s?

They forgot they were colonisers too. Also there is a weird belief that because it’s near to them it’s theirs (which makes zero sense. There are French and British territories in thebCaribbean and nobody argues they should be part of the USA or Mexico)

It’s also to do with their independence from Spain and their belief ownership with transfer.

And Trump is an idiot with a very weird hard on for the UK.

I have very mixed feelings about it. Before 1982 Thatcher had declined British passports to the islanders but defended them for political aims.

Britain as a country has existed since the 1700s.

Potential military base for the Southern Hemisphere.

Strategic.

Same reason as the UK and U.S want the Chagos Islands, Diego Garcia.

It is Las Malouinas not the Falklands. Sorry. Look at the geology

The Falkland Islanders want to stay British and it is hard to see their presence as brutal colonisation at any point in the history.

I remember the Conflict very well, deeply regret the loss of young life on both sides and it is to be hoped Milei does not repeat the mistakes of Galtieri.

Misleading in a sense that it's true, but probably inconvenient.

However that is all moot. The moment Argentina chose (because it was a choice) to try to use military force, all bets were off.

Won't somebody think of the rocks!

According to Geology thry are more like South Africa

What about Biology?
Give the islands to the oenguins. They at least have an actual territorial claim (unlike a country several hundred miles away)

I am usually the first to point out the ills caused by empires around the world. The Falklands (for that's what they're called) are not one of them. This whole thing is yet again a sorry by-product of jingoism gone sour - this time on the part of right-wing MAGA-affiliated Argentinians.

It’s not inconvenient, it’s historically and politically irrelevant.

Your second paragraph is spot on though.

Most Falkland Island residents did qualify for full British passports. Some didn’t, it’s true.

But that should give you fewer mixed feelings. The islanders wanted to be British but Britain wanted to deny some of them passports. Yet they still wanted fervently to remain British. The commitment of the islanders to Britain is very, very strong.

It's a fantastic detractor for all the other things gone wrong in the country that he doesn't want the voters looking too closely at.