Falkland Islands lie in Argentinian waters, UN commission rules - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Tumama;50029741]It's sad to see people still believing (and sometimes hoping for) there will be another war between my country and Britain, really, given the current state of our navy. It's even sadder when the one's who want that are britons. Like asking for an excuse to You really want to punish our people for the dickwaving of a cunt we just kicked out? I don't think this changes anything really. We just have more sea to patrol for those pesky chinese ships that are showing up more recently. As Starpluck said like 3 times, this only affects the waters around us.[/QUOTE] It's not that we want another war - I just think some of us British folk get frustrated/irate. Your government seems to be constantly acting in a childish manner towards the situation, and things are further exacerbated when portions of the population act in a similar fashion (see the picture in the OP). There's only so much before you start wanting to say "seriously, fuck off".

[QUOTE=David29;50029788](that picture you mentioned of)[/QUOTE] That was on 2012 and those were CFKs militants, so don't take that personally. You can even see a sticker with Kirchner's face on the bottom of that sign. Most of the people protesting most of the times are either war vets (completely neglected by past administations, some of them are still unrecognized as such) or 'anti-imperialist' lefties who would seize any moment to shit on the US and the UK. [editline]asdasd[/editline] When it comes to threats, just act like we're the North Korea of South America. Ignore and move on.

This is just going to feed the Argentinians ammunition. If they manage to buy some new military equipment in the future they could very well try fight another stupid war over the islands. I want to see the islanders treated with respect as much as anyone else but after a lot of reading on this I think the bigger practical issues on this aren't given the full attention The last war cost the UK £2.7 billion. Enough money that we could have paid every sod on the island to leave and become serious multi-millionaires that each could have bought their own fucking islands in tropical regions if they so pleased, rather than living in a miserable wet shitpit on the southern face of the planet with no outstanding features other than sea-based oil we have no legal right or access to. Yeah, if its their home, it is nasty to say they should leave. [I]But its 3000~ people. [/I] The last war killed about 1000 people. The economic cost of waging wars means that social spending and living quality suffer on both sides, especially to the Argentines - last time the Argentine government literally destabilised, for better or worse. At what point do you figure that self determination can't be the final word on an issue this complex. If we pay off the Islanders, let the few left make do with Argentine rule, we guarantee a war won't happen, secure better living for the bigger part of millions of people in both countries in the future, and the only adverse effects are that we have a slightly wounded pride and a small amount of pissed off Falklanders. Diplomatically, we twist it to make ourselves look reasonable and earn respect for it - maybe even get the Argentines to help pay for a resettlement bill.

[QUOTE=Dr.Critic;50029846]This is just going to feed the Argentinians ammunition. If they manage to buy some new military equipment in the future they could very well try fight another stupid war over the islands. I want to see the islanders treated with respect as much as anyone else but after a lot of reading on this I think the bigger practical issues on this aren't given the full attention The last war cost the UK £2.7 billion. Enough money that we could have paid every sod on the island to leave and become serious multi-millionaires that each could have bought their own fucking islands in tropical regions if they so pleased, rather than living in a miserable wet shitpit on the southern face of the planet with no outstanding features other than sea-based oil we have no legal right or access to. Yeah, if its their home, it is nasty to say they should leave. [I]But its 3000~ people. [/I] The last war killed about 1000 people. The economic cost of waging wars means that social spending and living quality suffer on both sides, especially to the Argentines - last time the Argentine government literally destabilised, for better or worse. At what point do you figure that self determination can't be the final word on an issue this complex. If we pay off the Islanders, let the few left make do with Argentine rule, we guarantee a war won't happen, secure better living for the bigger part of millions of people in both countries in the future, and the only adverse effects are that we have a slightly wounded pride and a small amount of pissed off Falklanders. Diplomatically, we twist it to make ourselves look reasonable and earn respect for it - maybe even get the Argentines to help pay for a resettlement bill.[/QUOTE] What a terrible attitude. Fuck the people who live there, fuck the fact that the Argentine government only care about the Falklands so they can use it as a scape goat, fuck the fact that they have actually no claim to the fucking islands. Nah, let's just give it over to them. The people who live there don't matter, public opinion doesn't matter, the morality of forcing people off their land doesn't matter. The only important thing is that Britain [i]might[/i] make themselves look reasonable (despite no one else in the world supporting Argentina, including many Argentinians), and that the Argentine government will stop whining about it constantly.

[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;50029887]What a terrible attitude. Fuck the people who live there, fuck the fact that the Argentine government only care about the Falklands so they can use it as a scape goat, fuck the fact that they have actually no claim to the fucking islands. Nah, let's just give it over to them. The people who live there don't matter, public opinion doesn't matter, the morality or forcing people off their land doesn't matter. The only important thing is that Britain [i]might[/i] make themselves look reasonable (despite no one else in the world supporting Argentina, including many Argentinians), and that the Argentine government will stop whining about it constantly.[/QUOTE] You really want to play this game? You really want to devolve any debate into a shit flinging contest where you just resort to insulting me? The 1000 people who died in the last conflict, and everyone that will die in the next conflict don't matter to you? The people who are going to suffer indirectly from pointless spending on wars to preserve a controversial status quo don't matter to you? If we pay off the Islanders a plentiful amount, the approach isn't "fuck the islanders" anymore than yours is "fuck the war dead". The countries involved have a combined population of 100 million. We're keeping a diplomatic problem that could spark into a war, alive over 3000. [quote] public opinion doesn't matter[/quote] I'll grant you this - this really doesn't matter. Fact is it should change. edit: [quote] fuck the fact that the Argentine government only care about the Falklands so they can use it as a scape goat, [/quote] If they can no longer use it as a scapegoat, its a force for social change, restructuring and anti-corruption in Argentina. The pride of non-islanders is irrelevant. [quote]fuck the fact that they have actually no claim to the fucking islands.[/quote] Well, just now the island is in their waters. That constitutes a claim.

[QUOTE=Dr.Critic;50029939]You really want to play this game? You really want to devolve any debate into a shit flinging contest where you just resort to insulting me? The 1000 people who died in the last conflict, and everyone that will die in the next conflict don't matter to you? The people who are going to suffer indirectly from pointless spending on wars to preserve a controversial status quo don't matter to you? If we pay off the Islanders a plentiful amount, the approach isn't "fuck the islanders" anymore than yours is "fuck the war dead". The countries involved have a combined population of 100 million. We're keeping a diplomatic problem that could spark into a war, alive over 3000. I'll grant you this - this really doesn't matter. Fact is it should change.[/QUOTE] But the islanders don't want to leave, and there will not be another conflict over the island. Argentina does not have the capability to wage war against the standing garrison let alone reinforcements. 'Controversial' the status quo may be it's how it will be because the only people who kick up a stink about it are Argentina, the war was necessary and I don't see anyone really saying it was a bad war, we were defending our territory and our citizens.

[QUOTE=Thomo_UK;50029973]But the islanders don't want to leave, and there will not be another conflict over the island. Argentina does not have the capability to wage war against the standing garrison let alone reinforcements. 'Controversial' the status quo may be it's how it will be because the only people who kick up a stink about it are Argentina, the war was necessary and I don't see anyone really saying it was a bad war, we were defending our territory and our citizens.[/QUOTE] [quote]Argentina does not have the capability to wage war against the standing garrison let alone reinforcements.[/quote] Not right now, but all manner of things could happen - they could get sponsored by another state for starters, given money, old equipment, supplies, etc. Their economy could pick up and a radical pro-active government could get elected, etc. Russia gave them some long range bombers recently, early Cold War junk they might have been. In the first war the Argentines were destroying ships with non-guided 1000kg bombs, and would have sunk several more ships if they had used them at a higher altitude. In fact we're still using the same core air defence technology that did awfully last time, which is to say Sea Wolf and Rapier, only with updates. I've no doubt that the British military has even better odds now than it did in 1982, but you can still underestimate the capacity for things to go wrong Fact is that its not guaranteed that Argentina won't be in a position to fight another war, even if takes decades. They could try fight a war with a corrupt government that fails to realize how futile their efforts were - last time the Argentines lost every single battle on land on the islands. [quote]and I don't see anyone really saying it was a bad war,[/quote] Are there good wars, especially when we can solve this diplomatically?

[QUOTE=Dr.Critic;50029939]You really want to play this game? You really want to devolve any debate into a shit flinging contest where you just resort to insulting me? The 1000 people who died in the last conflict, and everyone that will die in the next conflict don't matter to you? The people who are going to suffer indirectly from pointless spending on wars to preserve a controversial status quo don't matter to you? If we pay off the Islanders a plentiful amount, the approach isn't "fuck the islanders" anymore than yours is "fuck the war dead". The countries involved have a combined population of 100 million. We're keeping a diplomatic problem that could spark into a war, alive over 3000. I'll grant you this - this really doesn't matter. Fact is it should change. edit: If they can no longer use it as a scapegoat, its a force for social change, restructuring and anti-corruption in Argentina. The pride of non-islanders is irrelevant. Well, just now the island is in their waters. That constitutes a claim.[/QUOTE] First off I didn't insult you. You're an idiot who thinks people calling your opinions terrible is an insult. There, now I've insulted you. Second, the 904 people who died there in the 80s should have no bearing on anything, and if I agreed that they should then the winners (Britain) should hold the island. "We might have a war" is a fucking stupid excuse, Britain [i]might[/i] decide they want Ireland back and start a war, better just hand over the country now then to avoid that. Third, the "Public opinion doesn't matter" was sarcastic. The general public don't want to give over the Falklands, the islanders don't want to give over the islands, and many Argentinians don't want the islands. Public opinion does matter, and public opinion is that things should stay as they are. You and Jeremy Corbin might disagree but you're in the minority. How are they going to use those tiny islands as "a force for social change, restructuring, and anti-corruption" when all the Argentine government will do is move a few thousand people onto the islands and promptly forget about it? It's a scapegoat because there was a war over it once, it's not an important landmass for either side. Having the UN say "You own the water" doesn't mean they own the land. They had control of the land for less time than any other group have held it, [del]I've been alive for longer than Argentina owned the Falklands[/del] actually they had it for slightly longer than I thought, and that was almost 200 years ago. As it stands the Falklands are a British Overseas Territory, that is what the people want and that is how it should stay.

[QUOTE=Dr.Critic;50030062]Not right now, but all manner of things could happen - they could get sponsored by another state for starters, given money, old equipment, supplies, etc. Their economy could pick up and a radical pro-active government could get elected, etc. Russia gave them some long range bombers recently, early Cold War junk they might have been. In the first war the Argentines were destroying ships with non-guided 1000kg bombs, and would have sunk several more ships if they had used them at a higher altitude. In fact we're still using the same core air defence technology that did awfully last time, which is to say Sea Wolf and Rapier, only with updates. I've no doubt that the British military has even better odds now than it did in 1982, but you can still underestimate the capacity for things to go wrong Fact is that its not guaranteed that Argentina won't be in a position to fight another war, even if takes decades. They could try fight a war with a corrupt government that fails to realize how futile their efforts were - last time the Argentines lost every single battle on land on the islands. Are there good wars, especially when we can solve this diplomatically?[/QUOTE] There is nothing to be solved, it is ours and will stay ours as long as the Islanders want to remain British. The only appeasement seems to come from people like Corbyn who wish for no conflict, but simply giving into the Argentine demands is pointless, their country will still be crippled and they will still be angry at the government it will not be the force for change you think it would be. The bombers or other craft other countries can give them is no match for Typhoon aircraft, let alone the standing Garrison equipped with Starstreak, ASW helicopters and many others which would decimate any landing party they could muster.

[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;50030064]First off I didn't insult you. You're an idiot who thinks people calling your opinions terrible is an insult. There, now I've insulted you. Second, the 904 people who died there in the 80s should have no bearing on anything, and if I agreed that they should then the winners (Britain) should hold the island. "We might have a war" is a fucking stupid excuse, Britain [i]might[/i] decide they want Ireland back and start a war, better just hand over the country now then to avoid that. Third, the "Public opinion doesn't matter" was sarcastic. The general public don't want to give over the Falklands, the islanders don't want to give over the islands, and many Argentinians don't want the islands. Public opinion does matter, and public opinion is that things should stay as they are. You and Jeremy Corbin might disagree but you're in the minority. How are they going to use those tiny islands as "a force for social change, restructuring, and anti-corruption" when all the Argentine government will do is move a few thousand people onto the islands and promptly forget about it? It's a scapegoat because there was a war over it once, it's not an important landmass for either side. Having the UN say "You own the water" doesn't mean they own the land. They had control of the land for less time than any other group have held it, I've been alive for longer than Argentina owned the Falklands, and that was almost 200 years ago. As it stands the Falklands are a British Overseas Territory, that is what the people want and that is how it should stay.[/QUOTE] [quote]First off I didn't insult you. You're an idiot who thinks people calling your opinions terrible is an insult. There, now I've insulted you.[/quote] Okay. I can't say I really care. Was this neccessary? I'll let you look up the meaning of "insult" in your own time so you don't walk into someone's office and start screaming at them and taking their words out of context when they're trying to have rational discourse. [quote]Second, the 904 people who died there in the 80s should have no bearing on anything,[/quote] Except perhaps further demonstrating that war is a tragedy we should avoid at all cost and there aren't excuses for it? [quote]"We might have a war" is a fucking stupid excuse,[/quote] 904 war graves would disagree with you. You haven't actually explained this point at all, just given an analogy which makes no sense. [quote]Britain might decide they want Ireland back and start a war, better just hand over the country now then to avoid that.[/quote] For all the value of this statement you might as well have said the Argentines will set up death camps on the island and become Nazis once they move in. (This is what sarcasm looks like) The situations are nothing alike. Neighbouring countries in northern Europe and much of southern Europe in the current climate do not have wars over territory like that. But we could still have wars over colonial era holdouts. [quote]ow are they going to use those tiny islands as "a force for social change, restructuring, and anti-corruption" when all the Argentine government will do is move a few thousand people onto the islands and promptly forget about it?[/quote] That's not the point - noone in the populace, not the rightwing, not the elites will be empowered by taxi doors covered in "las Malvinas son Argentinas" propaganda. The Argentine public will look for other issues to focus on. [quote]it's not an important landmass for either side.[/quote] Now you're at the crux of my point. If its not an important land mass, why are we deliberately sabotaging our diplomatic relations, risking war, socio-economic damage on both sides over it? And yes, I know you're pointing to the people living on it, and I'm not trying to say that they don't matter or that they should be ignored. Noone has actually held a referendum on whether the Falklanders would leave if paid off with millions of pounds or if they would dig deeper. [quote]Having the UN say "You own the water" doesn't mean they own the land.[/quote] Definitively, you're right, but generation after generation is going to continue wondering why a foreign territory is inside theirs, and Argentina is going to use that as a valid point.

[QUOTE=Dr.Critic;50030062]Not right now, but all manner of things could happen - they could get sponsored by another state for starters, given money, old equipment, supplies, etc. Their economy could pick up and a radical pro-active government could get elected, etc. Russia gave them some long range bombers recently, early Cold War junk they might have been. In the first war the Argentines were destroying ships with non-guided 1000kg bombs, and would have sunk several more ships if they had used them at a higher altitude. In fact we're still using the same core air defence technology that did awfully last time, which is to say Sea Wolf and Rapier, only with updates. I've no doubt that the British military has even better odds now than it did in 1982, but you can still underestimate the capacity for things to go wrong Fact is that its not guaranteed that Argentina won't be in a position to fight another war, even if takes decades. They could try fight a war with a corrupt government that fails to realize how futile their efforts were - last time the Argentines lost every single battle on land on the islands.[/quote] What's your point? That it's better to roll over to people who are completely in the wrong just because they might once again attempt to use force to gain the islands? If they do, hopefully the UK will decimate their military to make the point a bit clearer just how outmatched they are (not to mention the UK could call on NATO). Capitulation to bullies doesn't work on the world stage. [quote]Are there good wars, especially when we can solve this diplomatically?[/QUOTE] Giving up the islands is not "diplomacy", it's capitulation to ghost gunboat diplomacy.

argentina is the one in the wrong for having invaded the islands in the first place and killing innocent people their claims to the island are pretty much without foundation and their continued attempts to claim them are childish and should not be entertained. if they invade again, then it's their fault and their fault alone for any and all of the deaths and destruction including those of argentines since they initiated the war and are thus responsible for the deaths of their own countrymen in a pointless conflict i mean why even give them to argentina? should we give cuba to the USA on basis of proximity? should corsica be annexed to italy, or finland to russia?

[QUOTE=Dr.Critic;50030167]Okay. I can't say I really care. Was this neccessary? I'll let you look up the meaning of "insult" in your own time so you don't walk into someone's office and start screaming at them and taking their words out of context when they're trying to have rational discourse. Except perhaps further demonstrating that war is a tragedy we should avoid at all cost and there aren't excuses for it? 904 war graves would disagree with you. You haven't actually explained this point at all, just given an analogy which makes no sense. For all the value of this statement you might as well have said the Argentines will set up death camps on the island and become Nazis once they move in. (This is what sarcasm looks like) The situations are nothing alike. Neighbouring countries in northern Europe and much of southern Europe in the current climate do not have wars over territory like that. But we could still have wars over colonial era holdouts. That's not the point - noone in the populace, not the rightwing, not the elites will be empowered by taxi doors covered in "las Malvinas son Argentinas" propaganda. The Argentine public will look for other issues to focus on. Now you're at the crux of my point. If its not an important land mass, why are we deliberately sabotaging our diplomatic relations, risking war, socio-economic damage on both sides over it? And yes, I know you're pointing to the people living on it, and I'm not trying to say that they don't matter or that they should be ignored. Noone has actually held a referendum on whether the Falklanders would leave if paid off with millions of pounds or if they would dig deeper. Definitively, you're right, but generation after generation is going to continue wondering why a foreign territory is inside theirs, and Argentina is going to use that as a valid point.[/QUOTE] Was it necessary? Yes, absolutely. You seemed to want to be insulted, I felt that not insulting you when you had felt insulted would have made your feeling unreasonable. I just made it reasonable. War should be avoided at all cost? You do know it was the Argentinians that started the war, right? Britain was completely justified in protecting their land and their people. The only people who have the power to prevent another war are the Argentine government, because Britain are perfectly happy to sit there and do nothing. The "Britain could invade Ireland" statement was more to point out how ridiculous it is to say "B-but, there might be a war so lets give up everything to the people who have no right to our land", specifically because Britain has WAY more of a right to Ireland than the Argentinians have to the Falklands, which is still none at all. Argentina held the Falklands for 37 years, and even then it was fucking Spain who owned the damn islands. Argentina has no legitimate claim to the islands at all. Why are you sabotaging your relations? By what, holding on to a territory you've owned for 200 fucking years? It's the Argentine government who are the ones sabotaging diplomatic relations. At the crux of you point? You've not made a point. All you've done is make stupid appeals. "Ah but war, ah but diplomacy, ah but holding the Argentine government accountable for their incessant whining can't be done." No one has taken a referendum if the people would leave if you paid them an unrealistic sum because that has never been and will never be an option. Britain isn't going to pay their own people billions of pounds to give their own territory to a country which has no legal claim to it. Generation after generation will be told that Spain once held the islands for less than 40 years, and that Britain has ruled them since then. If they think that's reason to invade they're fucking retarded. Also, don't break up posts like that, it makes it a fucking nightmare to reply to you.

[QUOTE=DaMastez;50030236]What's your point? That it's better to roll over to people who are completely in the wrong just because they might once again attempt to use force to gain the islands? If they do, hopefully the UK will decimate their military to make the point a bit clearer just how outmatched they are (not to mention the UK could call on NATO). Capitulation to bullies doesn't work on the world stage. Giving up the islands is not "diplomacy", it's capitulation to ghost gunboat diplomacy.[/QUOTE] [quote] If they do, hopefully the UK will decimate their military to make the point a bit clearer just how outmatched they are[/quote] So your point is to hope in the future we can kill hundreds/thousands* of Argentinians to get it across that we can also be bullies? The very fact that we will have had a second war in this event will be proof this approach is flawed. *pending what you actually mean by "decimate" [quote](not to mention the UK could call on NATO).[/quote] [url=https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3046j5/why_didnt_britain_invoke_nato_article_5_during/]This we absolutely couldn't do even if we wanted to.[/url] The NATO charter forbids military intervention below the equator for attacks on overseas territories and similar things like that. That's why NATO intervention wasn't invoked last time. [quote]Giving up the islands is not "diplomacy", it's capitulation to ghost gunboat diplomacy. [/quote] What if you looked at diplomacy from the angle that its not just about pride and prestige? It would be a diplomatic success in a practical sense if economic risks were avoided alone.

the biggest point to take back is that argentina is the aggressor and that things will be fine as long as they don't invade the islands if they do, they are being aggressors and they are killing innocent people the argentines are the bullies for their actions p much

[QUOTE=Dr.Critic;50030299]So your point is to hope in the future we can kill hundreds/thousands* of Argentinians to get it across that we can also be bullies? The very fact that we will have had a second war in this event will be proof this approach is flawed. *pending what you actually mean by "decimate" [/quote] Hundreds or thousands of Soldiers, yes (along with arguably far more importantly military equipment and installations). The intent being to destroy Argentina's ability to wage a war at all. Alternatively, the UK could simply demand Argentina dismantle its military as part of the terms for peace. Though, if Argentina's government is willing to start another war it seems unlikely they will be willing to accept such demands without first suffering significant losses. Also, I don't quite follow how Argentina's government having another hissy fit and attempting to invade again has anything to do with a forceful UK response? The UK didn't have a forceful response in the first war, beyond retaking the islands. [quote] [url=https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3046j5/why_didnt_britain_invoke_nato_article_5_during/]This we absolutely couldn't do even if we wanted to.[/url] The NATO charter forbids military intervention below the equator for attacks on overseas territories and similar things like that. That's why NATO intervention wasn't invoked last time.[/quote] Fair point. They can still ask for NATO's help though, they just can't invoke article 5. [quote]What if you looked at diplomacy from the angle that its not just about pride and prestige? It would be a diplomatic success in a practical sense if economic risks were avoided alone.[/QUOTE] It's about the rights of the islanders who want to remain under the control of the Britain. If the concern is money, then demand Argentina pay the UK's cost for their futile war. Though such approaches don't tend to go well in the long run.

[QUOTE=Jordax;50026256]The UN: where Saudi Arabia leads an human rights council.[/QUOTE] Okay first of all they got a SINGLE SEAT, the leader is a South Korean Second of all, who is to say this isn't a Saudi man who wishes to improve the human rights in his country? Saudis can be sympathetic too you know. They have a horrible record but not every single person alive in the state believes in what the Saudis do. Countries have popular opinions but they aren't complete hiveminds. Third of all the UN does a ton of humanitarian and peacekeeping operations globally, you just don't get to experience them in your comfy dutch home but I bet those people in Somolia greatly appreciate what the UN does for them. The UN isn't a failure, it accomplishes a lot.

[QUOTE=Dr.Critic;50030167]Now you're at the crux of my point. If its not an important land mass, why are we deliberately sabotaging our diplomatic relations, risking war, socio-economic damage on both sides over it? And yes, I know you're pointing to the people living on it, and I'm not trying to say that they don't matter or that they should be ignored. Noone has actually held a referendum on whether the Falklanders would leave if paid off with millions of pounds or if they would dig deeper.[/QUOTE] The United Kingdom is not 'deliberately...risking war' over the islands. The grander notion you're implying that the defender in a conflict is responsible [i]for[/i] the conflict by virtue of not bowing to the demands of the aggressor is ridiculous. The situation with the United Kingdom and the Falkland Islands now, as in 1982, provide absolutely no threat to the security of Argentina or Argentinians whatsoever. Any military action on the part of Argentina would be entirely on them.

[QUOTE=Dr.Critic;50030062]they could get sponsored by another state for starters, given money, old equipment, supplies, etc. Their economy could pick up and a radical pro-active government could get elected, etc.[/QUOTE] Who, why and when would have a valid reasoning to rearm the Argies just so they could wage war and reclaim a couple of islands in the semi-frozen ass of the Atlantic Ocean? And if we're talking about folks arming other folks to fight each other for shit and giggles, there's no question that the UK would reinforce their own garrisons on the Falklands, the [B]second[/B] the argentine military begins to increase its military strength (Either via materiel purchases, or the installation of a radical government). Furthermore, there's always the US, Chile and everyone else backing up the brits. It's no longer the Cold War. Russia wins exactly zero by rearming Argentina just so a couple of bitter old men can fly a different flag on Stanley.

[QUOTE=Coffee;50025699][img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/Falklands.permanence.png[/img] Considering the UK has held it for the longest, the people of the island are of UK descent and have voted to stay a part of the UK, and also fought a recent(ish) war against the Argentinians over the islands and won, I think the islands fair and squarely belong to the UK.[/QUOTE] Hell, it looks like france had the island for longer then agentina

i really don't think argentina is going to be waging war anytime soon lol. this is not the argentina that was conditioned by the military regime's ultranationalist tendencies. propaganda isn't going to sway them as easily. yeah, it's still used as a political tool to get people riled up, but as soon as any sort of real action started to materialize i doubt the people who still hold a grudge would drown out the ones who see it as the waste it really is

[QUOTE=Starpluck;50025454]That would be stupid. The people do not want to be ruled by Argentina. Why subjugate the people?[/QUOTE] Hm what, imagine if this was true for the many cases around the world, imagine if it was legal for catalonia to separate from spain lmao.

[QUOTE=eirexe;50031571]Hm what, imagine if this was true for the many cases around the world, imagine if it was legal for catalonia to separate from spain lmao.[/QUOTE] The Falklands aren't trying to separate from anything, they're trying to stay a part of an empire they've been in for 200 years.

capitulating to the demands of a nation being loud and angry and threatening to.hurt people if they don't get their way sets a pretty bad precedent not that argentina will actually do anything, they have more to gain having it be a continual bitching point than they do controlling the islands

Why the fuck does the Falklands not have the rights to the waters around them?

It's pretty clear that there isn't going to be a war again any time soon (if ever), unless if Argentina is feeling suicidal. Claims by certain persons in this thread that the islanders should be relocated and the islands handed over to Argentina are both unrealistic and ill-informed. The United Kingdom has much more to lose by giving in than it ever would than by maintaining it's current policy. Remember that the UK is obliged to provide military and diplomatic support to it's overseas territories - failing to do so with the Falklands would cause other British Overseas Territories to lose confidence in their protector.

[QUOTE=GarbageCan;50030611]Okay first of all they got a SINGLE SEAT, the leader is a South Korean Second of all, who is to say this isn't a Saudi man who wishes to improve the human rights in his country? Saudis can be sympathetic too you know. They have a horrible record but not every single person alive in the state believes in what the Saudis do. Countries have popular opinions but they aren't complete hiveminds. Third of all the UN does a ton of humanitarian and peacekeeping operations globally, you just don't get to experience them in your comfy dutch home but I bet those people in Somolia greatly appreciate what the UN does for them. The UN isn't a failure, it accomplishes a lot.[/QUOTE] Don't forget seats for professional feminist victims in UN!

[QUOTE=Tumama;50029741]It's sad to see people still believing (and sometimes hoping for) there will be another war between my country and Britain, really, given the current state of our navy. It's even sadder when the one's who want that are britons. Like asking for an excuse to You really want to punish our people for the dickwaving of a cunt we just kicked out? I don't think this changes anything really. We just have more sea to patrol for those pesky chinese ships that are showing up more recently. As Starpluck and others said like 3 times, this only affects the waters around us.[/QUOTE] Don't get your knickers in a twist mate. It was a joke.