You have made many claims that the UK has visited violence against the islands without ever providing details. Time to give up some details. You keep saying you want debate, now is the time to have some.
No. I'm asking your for details on your assertion but you havent given any.
This is a great article on how Argentinians want a peaceful resolution to the sovereignty of the Malvinas. I think it's very relevant to all of the war talks that pop up from time to time here. . . . just 3 percent of Argentines say they would support a military solution, the firm found. The findings were based on a Jan. 24 survey of 1,000 people in metropolitan Buenos Aires, home to a third of Argentina's population. The poll's error margin was three percentage points.
Argentinas government lodged a formal protest at the United Nations Friday over what it says is Britains militarization of the disputed Falkland Islands - known in Argentina as the Malvinas Islands.
Argentinian Foreign Minister Héctor Marcos Timerman met separately with the U.N. secretary-general, the president of the Security Council and the president of the General Assembly to present his complaint.
Afterwards, Timerman told reporters that Britain has increased its naval power in the South Atlantic four-fold, moving a modern warship, sophisticated fighter jets and a nuclear submarine into the region.
Argentina has information that within the framework of the recent British deployment in the Malvinas Islands they sent a nuclear submarine with the capacity to transport nuclear weapons to the South Atlantic. This is a submarine which is called the Vanguard, he said.
Timerman said his government had asked Britain to answer whether it is true that it has a nuclear submarine in the region - a violation, he says, of a treaty that declares Latin America a nuclear weapons free-zone. Timerman said his government is still waiting for an answer.
Timerman said his government had asked Britain to answer whether it is true that it has a nuclear submarine in the region - a violation, he says, of a treaty that declares Latin America a nuclear weapons free-zone. Timerman said his government is still waiting for an answer.
Imagine if all of Latin America goes against the UK, too. It would be incredible. Would the UK keep the Malvinas at the expense of economic markets in so much of the world? I really doubt it.
South America is already booming. Add in some more countries and the loss of these markets to UK interests would be severe. The Malvinas just aren't worth it at that point.
If the claims of UK nuclear militarization of the area are true, then this might be game over for the UK. They may have completely played into the Argentine plans!
You have made many claims that the UK has visited violence against the islands without ever providing details.
While conveniently ignoring the 40,000 Falkland Island women that were raped during the Argentinian occupation.
I read that the UK only provided residents of the Malvinas full citizenship following the 1982 war. They were previously classified as "British Dependent Territories citizens." This suggests that the UK did not consider the Malvinas to be a strong part of the UK, or at least some reluctance to hold the islands.
How so?
If Argentine militarism from 30 years ago doesn't count, why should equally dated British attitudes about Falkland Islanders matter?Because they haven't been UK citizens for very long. It shows a lack of commitment to the Malvinas from the UK just a short while ago.
This is just more evidence that it will also be very easy to make the Malvinas economically nonviable for the UK.
This is just more evidence that it will also be very easy to make the Malvinas economically nonviable for the UK.
That is pretty weak evidence. Do you have any other evidence?
Do you have evidence or proof that it is weak evidence?
You are putting forward the position that it qualifies as evidence. The burden is on you, not on me.
You were asked for your other evidence and didn't provide any. It wouldn't be easy to transfer sovereignty and, more importantly, the UK will not let that happen.
Please stop with insults. The forum community is seeking to stop these types of things and make this a more vibrant place for actual discussion.
We can all have our fantasies, but I question what interests of France is served in helping the UK maintain its crumbling Empire. Why would France risk its military assets? Also, why would they want to alienate Latin America?
Ultimately, it doesn't matter, as Argentina has repeatedly stated that it is seeking a peaceful resolution. Its position is supported by most of the Western Hemisphere, including the United States.
guys, the best thing is to put both of them on your ignore list. Any kind of discussion with both of them is impossible and has been like this for years. The words Europe or UK ignite some kind of rage with both of them. Just ignore them, they can reply to each other all day long.
Wow. I had no idea about that. It shows that the Malvinas have even less of a connection to the UK than previously thought!
It makes the transfer of sovereignty very easy. The people haven't even been full UK citizens for very long.
To me it shows that it is not the UK government which is forcing its leadership upon the islands but the islanders desire to be British that is pulling them into ever tighter union.
I read that the UK only provided residents of the Malvinas full citizenship following the 1982 war. They were previously classified as "British Dependent Territories citizens." This suggests that the UK did not consider the Malvinas to be a strong part of the UK, or at least some reluctance to hold the islands.
Timerman said his government had asked Britain to answer whether it is true that it has a nuclear submarine in the region - a violation, he says, of a treaty that declares Latin America a nuclear weapons free-zone. Timerman said his government is still waiting for an answer.
Since when was the Falklands part of Latin America?
And since when did everyone tell the world about the loction of their nuclear submarines? Those very few who have the things, ain't going to tell anyone anything they don't "need to know" about them, and those who don't can't argue with that. It's unfortunate that the reason they can't argue with it is the implicit threat of complete annihilation but so be it. Besides we don't even know if it's just a nuclear powered attack sub (fair enough - we don't have enough operational surface ships, especially carriers, to cover that area... gotta have some kind of anti-ship backup) or a ballistic missile boat capable of turning the whole of Argentina into a massive hole in the ground (bit much at this stage ffs...). I bet about 10 people in the world know the answer to the question "what is that sub and where exactly is it"... and none of them are gonna be outside the UK and the US.
Link? The Malvinas currently only have about 3000 residents. That's a huge population decline.