Argentina to raise Falklands UK 'militarisation' at UN

[xxMATTGxx]

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.

[GommeInc]

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

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.

[Jordy]

I suddenly feel underestimated

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

[GommeInc]

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

[-:Undertaker:-]

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.

[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.

[GommeInc]

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

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.

[-:Undertaker:-]

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.

[GommeInc]

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.

[-:Undertaker:-]

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.