Once more than me. I was thrilled as an 8 year old to see Argentina beat West Germany in the 1986 final.
BTW, I can't believe we haven't faced England in nearly 20 years... I didn't get to experience '66 or '86, but that 1998 game is one of my best football childhood memories, winning on penalties thanks to Roa after a TREMENDOUS match (the goals made by Owen and Zanetti after the free kick!). And I was in 2nd grade and the whole class watching the game together along with the teachers, what a terrific day... The first WC i have memories of. 2002 was a bummer of course (damn naive Pochettino ), but what was worse was the following against Sweden, not wanting to believe it. And having to get up at 6/7am for that... damn Japanese time zone... But 20 years after that and still no official match between us... I think we're due for another duel. I hope is not on group stage though, if there's drama let's make it complete and have it on elimination stages!
Wishing Argentina all the best ahead of their critical world cup game.. just kidding. Viva Nigeria ✌️— Falkland Islands (@falklands_utd) June 26, 2018 Anyway, hoping to see a great match tomorrow, and hoping to meet (cause that'll mean we'd have advanced) later on! Though i think we could only encounter at semis or final.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...unt-faurie-south-atlantic-talks-a8602331.html Argies looking to take advantage of our Brexit shambles
The Biscuitman's article contains some helpful concessions from Argentina. The current Argentine government is much less focused on the islands than its predecessor. Taking the islanders' wishes into account is a hopeful step for Argentina. The Brits would insist on 3 party talks (including the FI government) in the event of negotiations. Argentina would refuse. The sensible solution is to have 4 party talks. There'd be a big table for the Argentines and a kiddie table for the FI and the Argentine province of Tierra del Fuego (of which the islands are theoretically a part). What say you, everyone?
The UK isnt going anywhere as long as oil is there. I dont see the point of a 4th party it would be purely symbolic. The third party of FI is essential its their soverignty after all. I would like Argentina to respect the settlers soverignty and the UK to cede all claims of mineral rights in the south Atlantic a conclusion no one would be happy with. But it seems fairest to me.
The 4th party is for Argentine concerns, as they'd refuse 3 party talks. Your ideas are good, but unrealistic.
Yeah I know it wont happen. The Argentines seem mainly concerned with glory and the UK government mainly concerned with economic opportunities. Its such a silly stalemate Britain shouldnt be in the south Atlantic (i said Pacific in my previous post because Im an idiot) but Argentinas claims seem pretty flimsy themselves. Maybe there should be a football match on the islands to decide once and for all. But we get Bale. Id watch that. Thankfully the Argentines have got rid of that Kirchner, she was so corrupt and jingoistic imo, if any Argentines are reading this what do they think if her? It seemed on the outside looking in any time she did anything dodgy sye would just go on about the malvinas, she really creeped me out.
The geographical argument has always seemed arbitrary to me. It's not like Argentina is an indigenous nation of which the islands were always a part, it's the product of the European rape and genocide of the natives just as most of South America is. At least the Falkland Islands were uninhabited when Britons settled there. The only more ethical solution than the Falkland Islands being a British Overseas Territory is the Falkland Islands being independent, but Argentinian aggression makes that impossible.
The French were the original settlers. Spain and Britain had competing settlements, before the Brits left a plaque. David Jewett claimed the Malvinas/ Falklands for Argentina after independence.
Imagine if the British had held on to Nantucket after the American Revolution. Then, you'd see how the Argentines feel.
except Nantucket is an always populated island right off the coast of a densely populated part of New England while the Falkalnds were islands 350 miles away from a remote part of Argentina.
It makes you wonder what is taught in Argentinian schools. The Falklands are about as far from mainland Argentina as Norway is from the UK, and twice as far as Cuba is from the USA. They were never populated until European settlers arrived, and were discovered and claimed by Britons a full 200 years before Argentina gained full independence. The idea that the islands are intrinsically part of Argentina, and 'just off the coast' is almost comical.
I have a similar story about the 1998 World Cup. A friend and I traveled to France to watch it. When not at games we wandered around Paris. I have a pretense of being an intellectual, it was my first time in Paris and I was just loving it ( I lived in Washington DC at the time and spent many lunch hours at the Smithsonian). All these museums with art that I had only read about in books. And now I could see it in person In the Louvre I was surrounded by all these soccer fans there for the Cup. And I could here an American woman complaining that her travel agent did not warn her the World Cup was on and her vacation was ruined.