Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of course, the chances of another war are basically nil (thank god), but, it could certainly be an issue in terms of trade relations between the UK/EU and Argentina.
What do you think about the matter? Is the UK's protectorship of the Falklands an issue of "colonialism," as Fernandez de Kirchner asserts, or is it the will of the island's residents?
Your poll is short an "let the islanders decide" option.
As they very much wish to remain British, that really should settle it.
Besides, the Argentine link is a serious stretch. They (well, their predecessor nation) had a somewhat questionable claim to the islands (via privateer/pirate/enterprising character Jewett laying claim to the islands in their name and telling them when he got around to it), but a 15-year presence 150 years ago does not really constitute anything.
And they'll get their backsides handed to them on a silver platter, with cucumber sandwiches, if they try anything military again.
The islanders, who have inhabited the place for centuries, will decide in a referendum in March to stay British. Case closed. And by the way the Falklands are British not English, many Scots including my uncles best friend died in the Falklands conflict.
I believe that what is REALLY behind this question are not the islands per se...
I believe the real reason for dispute are the "territorial waters" of the islands.
In my opinion, the islands may keep being British territory IF a fair agreement is reached with Argentina regarding the "territorial waters" of the islands and the economic exploration of those waters (including oil).
Because the islands per se have nothing of value...
I believe that what is REALLY behind this question are not the islands per se...
I believe the real reason for dispute are the "territorial waters" of the islands.
In my opinion, the islands may keep being British territory IF a fair agreement is reached with Argentina regarding the "territorial waters" of the islands and the economic exploration of those waters (including oil).
Because the islands per se have nothing of value...
they have international reputation value for the british , thats why they went to war in 82
I agree that the future of the Falkland's should be decided by the islanders themselves. The majority would agree to remaining in association with Britain, and it should remain unless the sentiment changes.
I believe that what is REALLY behind this question are not the islands per se...
I believe the real reason for dispute are the "territorial waters" of the islands.
In my opinion, the islands may keep being British territory IF a fair agreement is reached with Argentina regarding the "territorial waters" of the islands and the economic exploration of those waters (including oil).
Because the islands per se have nothing of value...
Why should Argentina get a fair agreement at all? The country is hundreds of kilometers away from the islands and since the islanders themselves want nothing to do with Argentina, what right does Argentina have to exploit them financially? The islands do have something of value, as per the article: "Located in the South Atlantic Ocean, about 480 kilometers (298 miles) east of the tip of South America, the Falklands have long been coveted as a strategic shipping stopover and potential wellspring of natural resources."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.