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.
Well it up to the people of Northern Ireland by vote if they wish to remain part of the UK or Ireland and that is the same case as the Falkland Islands. The majority of people of Northern Ireland wish to remain part of the UK just as the people of the Falkland Islands wish to remain part of the UK.
I did an extensive paper on this back in college in my political science class and did the whole forensic examination about who owned what.
When it comes down to it, the British have solid title to it and it's been occupied by them for almost 200 years. The people there have no interest in belonging to Argentina.
Kirchner is a silly old socialist hag that is dragging Argentina down into the abyss. Sad because Argentina could be one of the world's great economies.
Argentina's military is decrepit, using much of the same junk they had 30 years ago and the army rarely even gets ammo to practice with. Their navy is nothing and the air force has no modern fighters and almost no transportation capabilities with their C-130's being constantly grounded.
and the british army are not dab hands at torturing and murdering unarmed civilians ?
derry - january 1972 to name just one example
What's your problem?
Stop hijacking threads with this nonsense. Why don't you start another thread regarding Northern Ireland, which is proudly part of the United Kingdom whether you like it or not.
On another note, is your CAPS lock permanently disabled?
If you want to discuss this, make another thread. This one is only about Malvinas/Falklands. Your argument is a distracting fallacy.
I happen to find the situations perfectly equivalent. Tierra del Fuego was taken at gunpoint in the late 19th century - 50 years after the United Provinces of the River Plate lost control of the Falklands. Yet Argentina seems to insist that one 19th-century border change is unfair and should be undone, while the other isn't open for debate. Why is this?
You do not find that Argentina's change of stance - depending on what serves her interests - weakens her argument for possession of the Falklands?
Or if you find that the situations aren't comparable, will you present an argument for it being so?
Royal Navy:
Size 96 ships including the RFA
61 landing craft of the Royal Marines
170 aircraft of the FAA
Argentine Army:
As of 2012, the army has 44,233 mlitary personnel
British Army:
Size 138,500 regular and territorial
121,800 regular reserve
Granted, I used Wikipedia to dig this stuff (which I don't usually do), but I think the glaringly obvious point should be quite clear to those in Buenos Aires contemplating a repeat of 1982, taking on what is still one of the world's strongest and most technologically advanced military powers (and per GDP spending).
Do not see ghosts where they aren't. Nobody spoke ever or insinuated the word war.
Your discourse and highly military language continues to astonishing me.
Don't worry, you will get over it. In the meantime, the Falklands will stay British.
hehe Hombre. This is how the empires say "shut up " to the nuisance complaints of any country.
Nope, it's just cold hard facts. No one is telling you to shut up, I am merely pointing out that another assault on the islands would be extremely unwise.
If you have such strong principles regarding how awful empires are or were, I suggest you lobby your government to hand all of your lands back to the native tribes. Same principle, right?
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.