Argentina to raise Falklands UK 'militarisation' at UN

Quote:

---

Argentina is to make a formal complaint to the United Nations about British "militarisation" around the disputed Falkland Islands.

President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner made the announcement at a meeting of MPs, senior officials, and veterans of the 1982 war Argentina fought with Britain over the islands.

Tensions between the two countries have been increasing in recent weeks.

Last month, the UK said it was sending a destroyer to the region.

The status of the islands, known in Argentina as the Malvinas, is still a highly sensitive issue for Buenos Aires.

In December, Mercosur, a South American trading bloc, closed its ports to ships flying the Falkland Islands flag.

Then, last month, the UK said it was sending one of its newest destroyers, HMS Dauntless, to the South Atlantic, off the Falklands.

London described the move as "routine".

However, in her address on Tuesday, Ms Fernandez accused the UK of "militarising the South Atlantic one more time".

"We will present a complaint to the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly, as this militarisation poses a grave danger to international security," Ms Fernandez said.

---

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-16939043

Moaning as per usual. I don't see why they are complaining about us sending a warship to the area. There is always 1x Royal Navy warship that gets based in the area and just because it was replaced with a brand-new one they decided to moan about it.

Whilst you can understand their anger if they genuinely think they should have control (I mean, it's no accident that a member of the Royal Family is doing work there is it? :P) I do think they're fighting a losing battle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mathew

Whilst you can understand their anger if they genuinely think they should have control (I mean, it's no accident that a member of the Royal Family is doing work there is it? :P) I do think they're fighting a losing battle.

---

Sea King operations are the norm though, just part of his training! :P

Is that dispicable little woman whinging again? Hopefully the UN show her the door on these ridiculous claims. She's such a pathetic woman, who directs blame at the British whenever there are internal problems. Someone should just assassinate her and end her pathetic reign over Argentina, and her baseless claims over the Falklands. The Falklands are British and they want to remain British. She should learn what democracy is before having a sulk.

Those who are training in the RAF, specifically for Sea King duties, go to the Falklands. We always have a boat in the area and there were reports of HMS Dauntless going to the Falklands before she was having another outburst. Heck, if the Duke of Cambridge and HMS Dauntless were dispatched for no real reason, why should she question what we do? It's our lands.

She says she wants the British to understand peace, yet she is the annoying little fly that won't buzz off and leave the Falkland Islanders in peace after a previous Government of hers attacked it for no reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GommeInc

Is that dispicable little woman whinging again? Hopefully the UN show her the door on these ridiculous claims. She's such a pathetic woman, who directs blame at the British whenever there are internal problems. Someone should just assassinate her and end her pathetic reign over Argentina, and her baseless claims over the Falklands. The Falklands are British and they want to remain British. She should learn what democracy is before having a sulk.

Those who are training in the RAF, specifically for Sea King duties, go to the Falklands. We always have a boat in the area and there were reports of HMS Dauntless going to the Falklands before she was having another outburst. Heck, if the Duke of Cambridge and HMS Dauntless were dispatched for no real reason, why should she question what we do? It's our lands.

She says she wants the British to understand peace, yet she is the annoying little fly that won't buzz off and leave the Falkland Islanders in peace after a previous Government of hers attacked it for no reason.

---

No, no, no. You do not wish death on someone for such a petty thing as this. I understand why you might not like Cristina but many Argentinians and even many of those on an international spectrum are very fond of her - for reasons they feel are valid. I am not taking a side on the political issue but I really must stress that maturity is important when you debate about serious things like this and asking for assassination carried out on someone you don't like is in no way mature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GommeInc

Is that dispicable little woman whinging again? Hopefully the UN show her the door on these ridiculous claims. She's such a pathetic woman, who directs blame at the British whenever there are internal problems. Someone should just assassinate her and end her pathetic reign over Argentina, and her baseless claims over the Falklands. The Falklands are British and they want to remain British. She should learn what democracy is before having a sulk.

Those who are training in the RAF, specifically for Sea King duties, go to the Falklands. We always have a boat in the area and there were reports of HMS Dauntless going to the Falklands before she was having another outburst. Heck, if the Duke of Cambridge and HMS Dauntless were dispatched for no real reason, why should she question what we do? It's our lands.

She says she wants the British to understand peace, yet she is the annoying little fly that won't buzz off and leave the Falkland Islanders in peace after a previous Government of hers attacked it for no reason.

---

Agreed. Perhaps she was on her period when she found out, who knows, either way it's a bit of a slight overreaction to something which isn't really a problem.

Considering how many real problems there are in the world I am sure the UN will be delighted (not) to discuss this matter which is quite trivial in context.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mdna

I understand why you might not like Cristina but many Argentinians and even many of those on an international spectrum are very fond of her - for reasons they feel are valid.

---

How to wear a pencil skirt and whinge so much until your face turns the same colour as your nations flag does not make a politician. Her only claim to fame is piggybacking off the success of her husband, he brought in changes that made the country go through an economic boom when he was in power. As an individual her only talent is being hateful towards an island she has no claim over and leeching off the hate of Argentina, who still think they have a right over the islands despite the fact they only went to war in the 1980s because their corrupt military Government wanted to divert internal pressures by giving its citizens something to moan about - the Falklands.

What's more pathetic about this woman is she is getting Chile, Brazil, Peru and a few other Latin America/South American countries involved when the problem is purely between Great Britain AND Argentina, but the pathetic woman is too stupid to go it alone. Britain does not want to discuss the islands because the occupants of the islands want to remain British, but the woman is too thick to get that through her head. She's using pointless rhetoric - the Brits are bering colonialist - when we've grown out of that and what she's too stupid to realise is she is literally the pot calling the kettle black, because what she is doing is some ancient colonialist ethic of "I want it, I shall have" without a thought for democracy, something her country should know all to well when they broke apart from Spanish rule in the 1800s.

The woman needs a damn hard slap in the face, and I hope the UN do it for us. She's acting like spoilt brat. It's shocking the Agentine constitution has the Las Malvinas as a part of their constitution - surely the UN would have a say on a country who has war and takeovers as part of their constitution?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GommeInc

Is that dispicable little woman whinging again? Hopefully the UN show her the door on these ridiculous claims. She's such a pathetic woman, who directs blame at the British whenever there are internal problems. Someone should just assassinate her and end her pathetic reign over Argentina, and her baseless claims over the Falklands. The Falklands are British and they want to remain British. She should learn what democracy is before having a sulk.

Those who are training in the RAF, specifically for Sea King duties, go to the Falklands. We always have a boat in the area and there were reports of HMS Dauntless going to the Falklands before she was having another outburst. Heck, if the Duke of Cambridge and HMS Dauntless were dispatched for no real reason, why should she question what we do? It's our lands.

She says she wants the British to understand peace, yet she is the annoying little fly that won't buzz off and leave the Falkland Islanders in peace after a previous Government of hers attacked it for no reason.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GommeInc

How to wear a pencil skirt and whinge so much until your face turns the same colour as your nations flag does not make a politician. Her only claim to fame is piggybacking off the success of her husband, he brought in changes that made the country go through an economic boom when he was in power. As an individual her only talent is being hateful towards an island she has no claim over and leeching off the hate of Argentina, who still think they have a right over the islands despite the fact they only went to war in the 1980s because their corrupt military Government wanted to divert internal pressures by giving its citizens something to moan about - the Falklands.

What's more pathetic about this woman is she is getting Chile, Brazil, Peru and a few other Latin America/South American countries involved when the problem is purely between Great Britain AND Argentina, but the pathetic woman is too stupid to go it alone. Britain does not want to discuss the islands because the occupants of the islands want to remain British, but the woman is too thick to get that through her head. She's using pointless rhetoric - the Brits are bering colonialist - when we've grown out of that and what she's too stupid to realise is she is literally the pot calling the kettle black, because what she is doing is some ancient colonialist ethic of "I want it, I shall have" without a thought for democracy, something her country should know all to well when they broke apart from Spanish rule in the 1800s.

The woman needs a damn hard slap in the face, and I hope the UN do it for us. She's acting like spoilt brat. It's shocking the Agentine constitution has the Las Malvinas as a part of their constitution - surely the UN would have a say on a country who has war and takeovers as part of their constitution?

---

You are taking this far too personally Gomme . Wishing death upon somebody you don't even know? I had a brother who worked for a pharmaceutical in Argentina until recently (transferred to Mexico city afterwards), he's not Argentinian, yet often told me how compared to so many of toady's leaders she was a fantastic woman and leader.

Why does the UK feel the need to send in a new warship anyway? Apart from calling it "routine", there isn't a proper reason and so i understand why Argentina isn't so enthusiastic about this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mdna

No, no, no. You do not wish death on someone for such a petty thing as this. I understand why you might not like Cristina but many Argentinians and even many of those on an international spectrum are very fond of her - for reasons they feel are valid. I am not taking a side on the political issue but I really must stress that maturity is important when you debate about serious things like this and asking for assassination carried out on someone you don't like is in no way mature.

---

No, no, no. You do not try to take the thread off-topic by creating a post complaining about someone who figuratively spoke of assassinating someone, let's face it GommeInc isn't going to assassinate her? At least he's inserted a little passion into the thread. What's your post done? Absolutely nothing, it's not even on topic and you said as much yourself "I am not taking a side on the political issue". Shush.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catzsy

Considering how many real problems there are in the world I am sure the UN will be delighted (not) to discuss this matter which is quite trivial in context.

---

I have to agree, it's pretty much willy-waving atm by both by sides. There's next to no chance of anything kicking off but both the UK & Argentinian government use it to distract from genuine and important issues at home seeing as the media love it and it seems to unite a nationalistic feeling in both countries. I fully support the UK on the issue of the Falklands but I do think it's brought up completely unnecessarily when neither nation has done anything substantial for decades concerning the Falklands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eoin247

Why does the UK feel the need to send in a new warship anyway? Apart from calling it "routine", there isn't a proper reason and so i understand why Argentina isn't so enthusiastic about this.

---

Are you seriously asking that? There has always been at least one Royal Navy warship based at the Falklands. It's there for obvious reasons, to protect the islands if needed and it also helps out with any coast guard rescues and so on. The new warship was replacing the warship that would of been sent either back home or onto another mission/tour. This has always happened and just because the ship that replaced the old one is a one of our brand new warships, she's gone off on one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jordy

No, no, no. You do not try to take the thread off-topic by creating a post complaining about someone who figuratively spoke of assassinating someone, let's face it GommeInc isn't going to assassinate her?

---

I suddenly feel underestimated :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eoin247

Why does the UK feel the need to send in a new warship anyway? Apart from calling it "routine", there isn't a proper reason and so i understand why Argentina isn't so enthusiastic about this.

---

It's routine. There has always been a warship or two in the area, and the current one has always been in talks of being replaced. Kirchner is literally grasping at straws assuming it's some sort of threat, yet it's her who cannot be peaceful (she wants peace in the area, but cannot accept it). As for William, it's always been a great place to train recruits - particularly for helicopter training. I cannot seriously believe the silly woman wants him to dress up as a civilian and not in military attire - I assume the BBC and Reuters made that up, because no one can be that petty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GommeInc

I suddenly feel underestimated :(

---

You didn't have anything to do with her cancer scare I hope? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jordy

You didn't have anything to do with her cancer scare I hope? ;)

---

Urgh don't remind me of that fiasco! Although I think the blame for that went to America and nuclear testing, so I think I got away with it ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eoin247

Why does the UK feel the need to send in a new warship anyway? Apart from calling it "routine", there isn't a proper reason and so i understand why Argentina isn't so enthusiastic about this.

---

Why? number one its our sovereign land therefore we can do so with no questions asked & secondly, considering the Argentinians have invaded once and keep threatening us - i'd say its pretty sensible to do so.

To be fair, judging on territory it is closer to Argentina and blasting the president is quite blind because she did do Argentina some good. It was also part of the colonizing crusade in South America by Spanish, British forces and was left because it was a detached island with a small population, so never gained independence. Obviously Britain would fight to keep it for the natural resources, but Britain itself is not 100% in the right here and some are over-reacting with some spurt of patriotism in this thread. The claim to the island is a very tricky issue and I am saying that it will never be resolved just like many other territorial disputes over smaller islands happening in the world atm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grig

To be fair, judging on territory it is closer to Argentina and blasting the president is quite blind because she did do Argentina some good. It was also part of the colonizing crusade in South America by Spanish, British forces and was left because it was a detached island with a small population, so never gained independence. Obviously Britain would fight to keep it for the natural resources, but Britain itself is not 100% in the right here and some are over-reacting with some spurt of patriotism in this thread. The claim to the island is a very tricky issue and I am saying that it will never be resolved just like many other territorial disputes over smaller islands happening in the world atm.

---

Distance between mainland and territory means virtually nothing, there are people who live on that island and the British have given them the right to self-determination, as have the United Nations. Argentina has no right to question what the Falkland Islanders want, and for now they wish to remain British. I also like how you said Kirchner "did do Argentina some good", like she's suddenly changed and become bad :P

Argentina are literally doing it for colonisation and official "trolling" reasons, they do not need the islands, they only seem to want them for the sake of wanting them, like a child wanting a teddy bear but being told no because another child has it. The British knew nothing about the natural resources (not between 1830-1970ish) until they were recently discovered - besides, it is our territory so we can do what we want. Just because Argentina is in a huff over it doesn't mean we should stop the Falklands doing whatever they want, and if that includes drilling for oil then that's their decision. Argentina are more in the wrong here, and if they were too slow to move in on the Islands when the British took over then that's their fault for being constantly at war with the Spanish and amongst themselves. It's a child chucking their toys out of their pram for not getting their way, and it's made worse by a constitution built on warmongering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grig

To be fair, judging on territory it is closer to Argentina and blasting the president is quite blind because she did do Argentina some good. It was also part of the colonizing crusade in South America by Spanish, British forces and was left because it was a detached island with a small population, so never gained independence. Obviously Britain would fight to keep it for the natural resources, but Britain itself is not 100% in the right here and some are over-reacting with some spurt of patriotism in this thread. The claim to the island is a very tricky issue and I am saying that it will never be resolved just like many other territorial disputes over smaller islands happening in the world atm.

---

The Falklands islands are 300 miles away from Argentina, going on that claim to sovereignty should the following territories which are closer to one another than 300 miles belong to as follows..

Does Cuba belong to the United States? does Belgium/the Netherlands and the west of France belong to the United Kingdom? Alaska to Canada? Alaska to Russia? the western half of Argentina to Chile?

The above also have historical claims to one another which Argentina doesn't even have as Argentina didn't even exist as a nation when we acquired the Falkland Islands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

The above also have historical claims to one another which Argentina doesn't even have as Argentina didn't even exist as a nation when we acquired the Falkland Islands.

---

Hmm, not sure about that. I think Argentina was independent for about 15-20 years prior to us turning up on the islands. It's more a snooze you lose moment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GommeInc

Hmm, not sure about that. I think Argentina was independent for about 15-20 years prior to us turning up on the islands. It's more a snooze you lose moment.

---

I think it depends on when you base 'Argentina' as coming into being as a nation, as there was a Federation/Confederation within those years when we first offically declared as a colony.

But regardless of the dates anyway, the claim based on colonisation/imperialism is baseless - when those who make this silly argument ought to call for all the Argentinians/South Americans to return to Portugal/Spain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GommeInc

Distance between mainland and territory means virtually nothing, there are people who live on that island and the British have given them the right to self-determination, as have the United Nations. Argentina has no right to question what the Falkland Islanders want, and for now they wish to remain British. I also like how you said Kirchner "did do Argentina some good", like she's suddenly changed and become bad :P

Argentina are literally doing it for colonisation and official "trolling" reasons, they do not need the islands, they only seem to want them for the sake of wanting them, like a child wanting a teddy bear but being told no because another child has it. The British knew nothing about the natural resources (not between 1830-1970ish) until they were recently discovered - besides, it is our territory so we can do what we want. Just because Argentina is in a huff over it doesn't mean we should stop the Falklands doing whatever they want, and if that includes drilling for oil then that's their decision. Argentina are more in the wrong here, and if they were too slow to move in on the Islands when the British took over then that's their fault for being constantly at war with the Spanish and amongst themselves. It's a child chucking their toys out of their pram for not getting their way, and it's made worse by a constitution built on warmongering.

---

They don't need it, but they want it. Anyone would fight over some extra land, no matter how insignificant or small they are. Look at China and Japan fighting for the Daoyu Islands, which are an uninhabited bunch of rocks :P. They would obviously want to remain British because a bigger portion of their 3k population are British.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

The Falklands islands are 300 miles away from Argentina, going on that claim to sovereignty should the following territories which are closer to one another than 300 miles belong to as follows..

Does Cuba belong to the United States? does Belgium/the Netherlands and the west of France belong to the United Kingdom? Alaska to Canada? Alaska to Russia? the western half of Argentina to Chile?

The above also have historical claims to one another which Argentina doesn't even have as Argentina didn't even exist as a nation when we acquired the Falkland Islands.

---

I think it is very unfair for you to start giving comparisons of countries owning each-other, these are simply a small set of islands with a very small population of inhabitants. You can see many cases where such deputes go for territorial proximity as well as historical claims.

Oh and by the way, Alaska did belong to Russia. Russia sold it to America for money in the early 1900s. That is nothing like current claims for smaller islands. You are giving comparisons that are simply irrelevant to such situations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grig

I think it is very unfair for you to start giving comparisons of countries owning each-other, these are simply a small set of islands with a very small population of inhabitants. You can see many cases where such deputes go for territorial proximity as well as historical claims.

---

Mongolia is also a small country in terms of population density across its land, that doesn't mean it ought to be owned by China or Russia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grig

Oh and by the way, Alaska did belong to Russia. Russia sold it to America for money in the early 1900s. That is nothing like current claims for smaller islands. You are giving comparisons that are simply irrelevant to such situations.

---

I know, but i'm giving examples to show how ridiculous claiming based on how close the islands are are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Mongolia is also a small country in terms of population density across its land, that doesn't mean it ought to be owned by China or Russia.



I know, but i'm giving examples to show how ridiculous claiming based on how close the islands are are.

---

Mongolia is yet again a different situation. It never had a murky issue with colonialism by western imperial powers like all of South America did. It had a historic Mongol Empire under Genghis Khan and co. Although the Qing dynasty still had control of Mongolia, it has had a further history (dating back well before) not related to China as much. So that was just a form of imperialism- just like any other colonies European countries had. You see a dispute happening over Tibet for the last few decades, that has greater claim due to history, which islands such as the Falklands doesn't have.

You can't generalize cases, I was stating the Falklands is a murky issue because it is still a product of imperialism and simply didn't gain independence like the rest of South America due to a small land mass and population. Hence, over the years under so much British influence, it is now viewed British. Fair dos to the British, if they really wanted independence and succession they would have acted ages ago and the people don't. But Argentina will find it hard to claim it belongs to them if we go by history, Britain has a stronger stance on that.

Regardless of who wants what, the Falklands is inhabited and those who inhabit it have the final say on the matter. They want to remain under British control, and so they should be. Demoracy at its finest. It's not some uninhabited rock, it's a large land mass with people on that has been claimed for years. Argentina can't just burst in claiming they own the island, especially when those who inhabit it are content with the way things are.

Less we forget, it's not necessarily what the British or the Argentines want, but what the Islanders want. It's just pathetic that Argentina has gone crying to its neighbours and the UN because Britain and the Falklands do not want to change, when as you said, there is no reason to other than to own more land they do not need :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jordy

No, no, no. You do not try to take the thread off-topic by creating a post complaining about someone who figuratively spoke of assassinating someone, let's face it GommeInc isn't going to assassinate her? At least he's inserted a little passion into the thread. What's your post done? Absolutely nothing, it's not even on topic and you said as much yourself "I am not taking a side on the political issue". Shush.

---

I am not taking the thread off-topic. GommeInc brought forth the idea that Cristina should be assassinated and there was no indication that it was figurative. Just because you fall on one side of the issue that coordinates with someone else's view doesn't mean you can decide that their irrational statements are simply 'passion'. It was an overreaction and truly a wrong thing to say. If you want me to take a side then I will say that I think Britain can be ridiculously nationalistic and that the British news is only blowing up this news story to distract the United Kingdom from their financial troubles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GommeInc

How to wear a pencil skirt and whinge so much until your face turns the same colour as your nations flag does not make a politician. Her only claim to fame is piggybacking off the success of her husband, he brought in changes that made the country go through an economic boom when he was in power. As an individual her only talent is being hateful towards an island she has no claim over and leeching off the hate of Argentina, who still think they have a right over the islands despite the fact they only went to war in the 1980s because their corrupt military Government wanted to divert internal pressures by giving its citizens something to moan about - the Falklands.

What's more pathetic about this woman is she is getting Chile, Brazil, Peru and a few other Latin America/South American countries involved when the problem is purely between Great Britain AND Argentina, but the pathetic woman is too stupid to go it alone. Britain does not want to discuss the islands because the occupants of the islands want to remain British, but the woman is too thick to get that through her head. She's using pointless rhetoric - the Brits are bering colonialist - when we've grown out of that and what she's too stupid to realise is she is literally the pot calling the kettle black, because what she is doing is some ancient colonialist ethic of "I want it, I shall have" without a thought for democracy, something her country should know all to well when they broke apart from Spanish rule in the 1800s.

The woman needs a damn hard slap in the face, and I hope the UN do it for us. She's acting like spoilt brat. It's shocking the Agentine constitution has the Las Malvinas as a part of their constitution - surely the UN would have a say on a country who has war and takeovers as part of their constitution?

---

I dislike the tinges of misogyny that come forth in that post. Bringing up what kind of clothing Cristina wears is in no way pertinent to the issue. Just because she is a woman doesn't mean you need to throw in little jabs about her gender or clothing. She does not whine but rather acts on behalf of the desires of her country which is exactly what the leader of a democratic nation is expected to do. While it could be true that the issue is being brought up by Argentina to distract its citizens from something else, the British are doing the same. Like I mentioned above in this post, it is the British news agents who are only blowing up this story to give the citizens a scapegoat to, as you say, 'moan' about in light of the other issues facing the United Kingdom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GommeInc

The Falklands are British and they want to remain British. She should learn what democracy is before having a sulk.

---

The case of the Chagos Archipelago kind of mirrors exactly what you say Argentina shouldn't be doing. Although this piece of history is rarely studied and swept under the rug all too often, it is a black mark against British politics. Settlers of the islands had lived there for generations working on farms and agricultural projects before the British government, in a move to appease America, sold the Chagos Archipelago to America to be used for military purposes. It was with Britain's hands that the thousands of islanders were involuntarily loaded up on a ship and deported around the early 1970s and henceforth scattered elsewhere to live in poverty. This is a current case in the United Nations Human Rights court and I hope the islanders can return to their rightful home.

What I am saying with this example is that Britain isn't innocent when it comes to the rights of those living in dependencies across the oceans of the globe. Selling an island for political reasons and tossing its longstanding inhabitants away is an unacceptable move. How can the British do this and then complain when another nation moves in that direction? That is very hypocritical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mdna

British news is only blowing up this news story to distract the United Kingdom from their financial troubles.

---

Doing a dreadful job considering all that's in the news lately is Fabio Capello quitting his job as England Manager and that other footballer winning his fight against tax avoidance accusations. The Falklands news is pretty low-key, no one is talking about it so I can only assume you've not been paying attention to the news :/ What has been reported is played down - infact, what's been reported is pretty standard - Argentina say this, the British say this and it's left in the dark for weeks before any other news crops up. It's not being blown up at all, so yeah, you've clearly not seen the news :/

Also, I never brought up her gender - she's only popular because she looks good, everywhere states this whenever any information on the woman crops up. Good looks are not gender specific, men can look good too - so cut the misogyny crap because it's a mute argument ;) Her political achievements can be written on a postal stamp. The economic boom? Thank her husband for that, she's only riding on the benefits. Her only achivement is thriving off the hatred of the Argentine people who for some reason want the Falklands, when before 1979 they couldn't give a damn.

As far as history goes, Argentina have very little to do with the islands and only want to own them for the sake of owning them. Any debates between Argentina and Britain are pretty boring, Argentina want to make peace yet go against it by being aggressive - and drag in other countries on what is a pretty petty discussion. Britain do not appear to be aggressive, we've not called for other countries to stop trade - most things that have been stated are through retaliation e.g. Cameron calling Argentina colonialist was in response to their continued when our position is quite clear - it's up to the citizens of the Island to decide, not Argentina or the Brits. The fate of the Islands does not to be discussed - the UN allows for countries, settlements and islands to have the right to self-determination, and the Islanders want to remain under British rule. It's as simple as that. Why Argentina have suddenly decided to complain to the UN over this is beyond me, when Britain are working well within the law as are the Falkland Islanders.

I don't see why they keep complaining, all that will happen if they decide to invade is that they will lose and lots of lives pointlessly lost.

I guess we should also be punished for militarising our coastline also? Our land, our rules.

It's pretty standard to have some form of military contingent to defend sovereign landmass and islands need ships to be defended effectively.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mdna

If you want me to take a side then I will say that I think Britain can be ridiculously nationalistic and that the British news is only blowing up this news story to distract the United Kingdom from their financial troubles.

---

Why shouldn't we be patriotic in general or concerning this issue? (not nationalistic, see Orwell definition between both) - this [Argentina] is an aggressive nation which has in the past led to a war between our two nations which in the process killed hundreds of British servicemen in retaking the islands and still continues to threaten our nation over these islands which belong to us. I am probably the most weary on these forums of government tricks, but I can tell you this - this escalation has nothing to do with our financial situation and everything to do with an enemy foreign power potentially invading our sovereign territory again.

I think you will find that its Argentina yet again who are using the issue as a distraction, last time it was because of a military junta on the brink of collapse and a broken economy - this time its because of exactly the same, minus the military junta and replaced with a party wanting to win an election.

Apparently we've deployed nuclear weapons to the area... Argentina really are paranoid and aggressive as of late :/ I really hate how Héctor Timerman keeps saying "Give peace a chance" when it is them who is acting aggressive - how is blocking trade with the Falklands "peaceful?" I hope someone slapped him in New York when he showed these apparent slides of military bases in the Falklands - of course it will have some, they got invaded by Argentina for no reason before, the Islanders are going to want to keep defences in the area, and the fact it is British Territory should make it pretty obvious the British can do what they want.

The Guardian have a video of Kirchner giving her speech on the issue... My God she's irritating, she speaks like we invaded the Falklands in 1970, and that we started the war. The only war over the Falklands was started by her aggressive country, before that the Falklands were sitting there empty and we took over. Does she not understand factual history, or was she and the rest of her country taken over and controlled by the fake news her country made during the Falklands war - which made it seem like they were winning the whole time and sank half our ships when that was far from the truth. I can't believe this is being discussed, though the UN seem to be ignoring her and her country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GommeInc

Apparently we've deployed nuclear weapons to the area... Argentina really are paranoid and aggressive as of late :/ I really hate how Héctor Timerman keeps saying "Give peace a chance" when it is them who is acting aggressive - how is blocking trade with the Falklands "peaceful?" I hope someone slapped him in New York when he showed these apparent slides of military bases in the Falklands - of course it will have some, they got invaded by Argentina for no reason before, the Islanders are going to want to keep defences in the area, and the fact it is British Territory should make it pretty obvious the British can do what they want.

The Guardian have a video of Kirchner giving her speech on the issue... My God she's irritating, she speaks like we invaded the Falklands in 1970, and that we started the war. The only war over the Falklands was started by her aggressive country, before that the Falklands were sitting there empty and we took over. Does she not understand factual history, or was she and the rest of her country taken over and controlled by the fake news her country made during the Falklands war - which made it seem like they were winning the whole time and sank half our ships when that was far from the truth. I can't believe this is being discussed, though the UN seem to be ignoring her and her country.

---

If so, good - I wouldn't object to using nuclear weapons tactically against Argentinian military targets (including on the mainland) if a war broke out that we were unable to conventionally win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

If so, good - I wouldn't object to using nuclear weapons tactically against Argentinian military targets (including on the mainland) if a war broke out that we were unable to conventionally win.

---

I rather we didn't. Brain should be better than brawn in this circumstance, so we do not prove their ridiculous allegations. We're not being aggressive, we're being routinal. The Islands have always had a military force present there for training, because the mission was just so successful when Argentina invaded that it seems the best place to train future generations of servicemen and women.

I think the UN should question Argentina over their pact with the rest of Latin America. Blocking a peaceful settlement is hardly peaceful now, is it? :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GommeInc

I rather we didn't. Brain should be better than brawn in this circumstance, so we do not prove their ridiculous allegations. We're not being aggressive, we're being routinal. The Islands have always had a military force present there for training, because the mission was just so successful when Argentina invaded that it seems the best place to train future generations of servicemen and women.

I think the UN should question Argentina over their pact with the rest of Latin America. Blocking a peaceful settlement is hardly peaceful now, is it? :P

---

I'm talking about hypothetical circumstances because I would use them if I had to, I regard the Falklands as British as Dover.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

I'm talking about hypothetical circumstances because I would use them if I had to, I regard the Falklands as British as Dover.

---

Depends how badly they attack if they do "hypothetically". If they did, a well aimed shot at Buenos Aires should the trick - two wrongs do not make a right for Argentina. If they invade twice in a row they should face the consequences for it, but they never will. It'll be a political war we would win as we have UN and international laws on our side. What Argentina is doing is worse, mainly because what they are doing is real - we've not made it up, unlike them who have made up half of their stories :P

I usually hate bumping but this is quite an interesting read, and it does add information to the story which has gone quiet as of late:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-17148157

Argentine intellectuals have challenged their own government, by stating the Argentine government demands for sovereignty over the islands contracts itself, and that Argentina has still not properly taken responsibility for invading the islands in 1982.

It's nice to see Argentina has intellectuals - reading it at a glance you would think it was a contradiction in terms, but for once people inside Argentina are putting across the message that the Falklands can stay British if the islanders want to remain that way.

Taken from The Sun:

Quote:

---

TWO British cruise ships were refused entry to an Argentinian port today as the row over the Falklands escalated.

The Star Princess with 2,600 people on board and the Adonia, carrying 700, were due to dock in the port of Ushuaia two days after visiting Port Stanley.

But as they approached they were told they did not have permission to berth.

---

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...Argentina.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xxMATTGxx

Taken from The Sun:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...Argentina.html

---

...and back to normality :P