pics

I thought the whole Iran war in the 2020s was mainly as an outlet for Trump to rally people behind and justify unchecked cost of living increases, which was wanted by the billionaire class to distract from the privatization making things more expensive, and also the Epstein Files.

It was also so the dictator of Argentina could rally people behind him because he was losing popularity.

There was no colonization.

The issue with the malvinas/Falklands is that there are no "historically rightful owners", since no one lived there when they were discovered by the British.

But it's also not as easy as "the British discovered, so it's theirs", because they just discovered and left. They didn't leave no settlement.

The islands have a complicated history, both sides have strong arguments in favor of themselves, there's no clear cut "rightful owner".

To clarify, the ENGLISH are assholes about SPORT, not the UK, there are other cultures in there that are vastly different in their attitudes, it will be import to remember that when it comes to election time as well since you will find different parts of the UK will be voting in very different ways.

That's a very slanted version of the history. It is much more complicated than that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands#History

Tl;DR, settled and abandoned several times, Argentina's claim depends heavily on a legally dubious hand over of ownership from Spain and proximity. UK's claim is based on ongoing occupation of abandoned islands which it had never agreed their claim to was relinquished or invalid.And the fact that the independent settlers who were living there in the most recent re-settlement rejected Buenos Aires and asked for London's help to secure themselves.

All people who have been living on the islands for near 2 centuries want to be British (see referendum posted on here).

As for the "occupied territory" - well I think the South American natives might want to have a similar discussion about European settlers in Argentina who have also been there several centuries - if you want to unwind one in fairness you need to unwind the other.

Dot point version:

• Uninhabitated prior to European settlement/invasion of South America

• The Falklands remained uninhabited until the 1764 establishment of Port Louis on East Falkland by French captain Louis Antoine de Bougainville and the 1765 foundation of Port Egmont on Saunders Island by Captain John Byron (for clarity - separate parts of the island group, both groups unaware of each other as far as any documentation can tell).

• In 1766, France surrendered its claim on the Falklands to Spain, which renamed the French colony Puerto Soledad the following year. Problems began when Spain detected and captured Port Egmont in 1770. War was narrowly avoided by its restitution to Britain in 1771

• The British and Spanish settlements coexisted in the archipelago until 1774, when Britain'withdraw the garrison from the islands, leaving a plaque claiming the Falklands for King George III. Spain's Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata became the only formal presence in the territory. West Falkland was left abandoned, and Puerto Soledad became a penal colony. Amid the British invasions of the Río de la Plata during the Napoleonic Wars in Europe, the islands' governor evacuated the archipelago in 1806; Spain's remaining colonial garrison followed suit in 1811

• Since the islands had no permanent inhabitants, in 1823 Buenos Aires granted German-born merchant Luis Vernet permission to conduct fishing activities and exploit feral cattle in the archipelago. Vernet settled at the ruins of Puerto Soledad in 1826, and accumulated resources on the islands until the venture was secure enough to bring settlers and form a permanent colony [NOTE that was NOT a colony beholden to what is now Argentina, it was attempting to set up an independent state]

• Vernet's venture lasted until a dispute related to fishing and hunting rights led to a raid by the American warship USS Lexington in 1831, when United States Navy commander Silas Duncan declared the dissolution of the island's government.

• Buenos Aires attempted to gain influence over the settlement by installing a garrison in October 1832, which mutinied within a month and was followed the next year by the arrival of British forces, who reasserted Britain's rule

• The British troops departed after completing their mission, leaving the area without formal government.[48] Vernet's deputy, the Scotsman Matthew Brisbane, returned to the islands that year to restore the business, but his efforts ended after, amid unrest at Port Louis, gaucho Antonio Rivero led a group of dissatisfied individuals to murder Brisbane and the settlement's senior leaders; survivors hid in a cave on a nearby island until the British returned and restored order

• In the late 1830s, an appeal was made to the Colonial Office in London by businessmen seeing potential profit, for organised settlement of the islands.[49] In 1840, the Falklands became a Crown colony

The fact that Israel is committing a genocide and razing Gaza as the world watches mostly unmoved destroys your last sentence. The world doesnt care at all. This has nothing to do with sovereignty or administration or even colonialism. This is just about money (for england) and distracting people from the fact that Argentina's economy is collapsing (again, money).

This conflict is what happens when the military makes political decisions. Argentina could've had the islands for decades if they weren't so eager to play fascist invader themselves.

4 yellow cards, 1 for England, 3 for Argentina. Martinez, Romero, and De Paul all got carded, as did Anderson

Personally, I think the ref should have started handing them out right from the start to set the tone, but then I hate dirty football. I personally think you should beat the other team by playing better football