I think you're the one who's joking.
The territory was Spanish under the Nootka Convention, decades before the British took the islands. The British had agreed to those terms, renouncing all claims they had in the southern hemisphere of the Americas.
Under the Rio de la Plata government, the islands were part of their territory. The Rio de la Plata is recognized by Argentina as the same entity. Argentina held a claim to the islands since inception.
In 1832 and 1833, the British invaded the islands due to a conflict they had with the Argentines, threw away the existing population and illegally claimed the island for themselves.
So no, the opinion of squatters should not be taken into consideration like you wouldn't ask a burglar who's settled in your living room if he's comfortable there. That's blatant imperialism and colonialism you're advocating here.
What is Britain's claim exactly? The fact that they called dibs? Who cares if your government has nukes? At the moment they can't even see if they have to push or pull an exit door...
Argentina didn't have people on the islands and even if it did well tough shit it was over 200 years ago. Argentina are hypocrites anyway given what they did in Patagonia, everyone there is a transplanted population of squatters by your and their logic so are they going to give back Patagonia to Native American population
Argentina was founded by the Spanish through colonialism and imperialism and Argentina continued that tradition itself as I said before so they have no leg to stand on, face it they have no valid or legitimate argument.
EDIT: Something extra I just found, person can argue much better then I can so copy and pasting time.
Cut through all of the fake maps and stuff, and the crux of it is “Inheritance from Spain.” This is a falsehood. There was no “inheritance” and there is no international law of territorial acquisition and sovereignty by “Inheritance” - it doesn't exist. Territorial acquisition and sovereignty can take place by Cession, Prescription, Effective Occupation, Accretion and (until being outlawed under Article IV of the Hague Convention 1907) Conquest or Subjugation. None of these applies to Argentina in the case of the Falklands. No law, no basis for a claim. Should be simple, but let's go on….
Uti Possidetis Juris - Sounds fancy doesn't it? This is a principle of the law of Cession, first applied at the Lima Convention of 1848 when Spain oversaw the partition of its old empire. It is a signed and documented bilateral agreement between two states, recognising cession of territory. Argentina did not sign the agreement, didn't even turn up to the Lima Convention and was only recognised by Spain in 1858, ten years later, without the Falklands. This principle has never been applied retrospectively and Spain recognised British sovereignty over the Falklands in 1863. In short, it's a non starter.
“Formal possession in 1820” is another old spiel. An American privateer, David Jewett, in the pay of Buenos Aires, barely survived a storm and a mutiny and washed up on the Falklands. He waved a few guns around, raised a flag and went home shortly after (committing piracy against a Portuguese ship on the way). In his 30 page report to Buenos Aires, he didn't mention the Falklands once, which they discovered from a British newspaper 13 months later) and left Argentina under a cloud shortly after. Some “Formal possession” eh?
The Vernet settlement: Luis Vernet, a European businessman of dubious origin, had asked British permission to set up a ranching business on the Falklands. Britain had been reminded by the Dutch States General that its claim would lapse if it made no effective use of the islands and stated that it would claim them if we didn't want them. Vernet was the perfect answer. Unbeknownst to us, he also asked permission from Buenos Aires (which was not Argentina, I'll add) because the government owed him money. Vernet flew the British flag, and sent back regular reports to the British on his progress in establishing our settlement. When his venture failed, he left then asked our permission to return. His venture failed again and he was out of money except what was owed to him by the Buenos Aires government. He asked for money and they instead sent weapons in 1829 and told him to claim for them. He committed three acts of piracy against American ships and America removed him and his settlement by force in late 1832. In January 1833 the British sloop Clio arrived, paid and fed the inhabitants and encouraged them to stay. All except twelve did. Argentina still screams that this was a brutal invasion and that the population were expelled. Not one person was.
Proximity and being on Argentina's continental shelf: The single most useless argument, which has never been accepted in ICJ law. A quick look at what is on whose continental shelf in the world, shows how useless this really is.
In essence, Argentina believes a case of fraudulent history invented in 1946 which never was the case. There was no inheritance, no succession of states, no formal possession, no Argentine settlement and it comes down to “because they're closer.”
They have perfected this story over time and shout about it to everyone, whilst the British simply had no need to. 1946 was the year Argentina reinvented this “claim” after it voluntarily gave it up by treaty in 1849. There had been not one formal diplomatic protest for 97 years, nor had the Argentine senate even mentioned the word “Malvinas” between 1849–1941.
This entire “claim” is a fabrication which is indoctrinated into children from birth, hence they believe these strange stories. They repeat the myth that “Britain just turned up one day in 1833 to steal” ignoring our entire previous history with the Falklands which dated from 1592 - 224 years before Argentina even existed.
It is a clever sham, but nothing more.
“Absolute power does not corrupt absolutely, a
