> 1825, Great Britain admitted Argentina's independence from Spain, but didn't claim the islands.

They claimed the Falkland Islands before Argentina even existed as an independent country, as I said in my post. They didn't have to make a new claim every time they recognized a new country.

Also, you didn't address the continental shelf bit of evidence.

"Evidence" of what? A line drawn by Argentina around territory they want to take over? I'm going to assume you're kidding.

a) anyone can claim any territory they like; that doesn't automatically make the claim legitimate or credible

b) claiming a territory is academic unless you can actually enforce your claim

c) Britain claimed the Falklands (decades) before "Argentina" even existed in any form as an independent country

d) if a "British" claim and presence on islands with no native population is illegitimate, what does that make a "Spanish" claim and presence on land taken from the native population that is now called "Argentina"?

Maybe the people of the Falklands are going home when the people of Argentina do.

> No, they did not claim it before that year.

https://www.google.com/search?q=1765+falklands+claim

https://www.google.com/search?q=argentine+independence

Even after so-called "Argentine independence" - half a century after Britain claimed the Falklands - "Argentina" didn't exist even remotely like the country we know today.

In fact even by 1865 - 100 YEARS after the British claimed the Falklands, and 15 years after "Argentina" relinquished claims in the treaty of Arana Southern - this is what "Argentina" looked like:

http://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~21...

So who do the British owe the Falklands to again? Buenos Aires? United Provinces of the River Plate? Argentine Confederation? Chile? Uruguay? Araucania and Patagonia? Spain?

Tell me again the one about returning stolen land.

Oh, so your argument is that the country changed. Big deal.

Again: Spain asserted sovereignity over those islands as part of the colony way before that.

The "line drawn by Argentina" is the territory accepted by the UN. That little organization where all the countries are represented. I understand from what you say that you favor the rule of the strongest instead of the actual law and common sense, but it's something real and concrete: the Argentinean sea surrounds the islands, and it's been proved to be a part of the country. The UK has absolutely NOTHING to do there, as their country is on the other hemisphere.

I'll reply to the rest of the "arguments" as you so call them, about the "claims" they did. I need to retrieve some information from the library first, so I can give you some proper references, instead of Google, as you did. Maybe that way you can learn something.

This is going to go absolutely nowhere other than me repeating the same hard facts and you refusing to hear and accept them, but I'll just address this:

> The "line drawn by Argentina" is the territory accepted by the UN.

Do you not even understand what's written in the link you posted as "evidence" or something?

The very first sentences state (emphasis/capitalization mine):

    "The Argentine Foreign Ministry announced on 28 March 2016 that it
     had gained international recognition of a claim to an exceptionally
     large continental shelf. 
  
     BUT THEY WERE MISTAKEN.

     [...]

     On 23 May 2016, the [UN] Commission made public its recommendations
     and ONLY A SMALL PROPORTION OF THE ARGENTINE CLAIM WAS ENDORSED.

     This paper explains the legal regime and the political process 
     that led the Commission to REFUSE TO CONSIDER THE ARGENTINE CLAIM
     TO THE SHELF AROUND THE ISLANDS CONTROLLED BY THE UNITED KINGDOM,
     AND TO A PART OF ANTARCTICA. 

And, after citing Argentine government lies on the matter, and fake news reports from Argentina and the UK, it concludes with the following:

     the Argentine Foreign Ministry knew NO PART OF THE CONTINENTAL 
     SHELF AROUND THE ISLANDS UNDER BRITISH CONTROL WOULD BE CONSIDERED
     by the sub-commission.

     [...] 

     Indeed, the legal situation was so unambiguous that THE ARGENTINE 
     DELEGATION DID NOT EVEN ASK FOR THE FULL SUBMISSION TO BE CONSIDERED.

You literally, objectively, as a matter of fact don't know what you are talking about here.

Just for the record: you're defending an imperial colony in the 21st century, that exists for the sole purpose of having a claim for the UK over Antartida. That's it. That's the whole point of the UK being there. Of course the oil and fish are a plus, but if those islands were closer to Brazil, they would've left a long time ago.

> Just for the record: you're defending an imperial colony in the 21st century

It's almost as if you didn't post this (in the 21st century) as an argument for an Argentine take over of the Falklands:

"Again: Spain asserted sovereignity over those islands as part of the colony way before that."

No, they did not claim it before that year.