Argentina & Falklands tension

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-lati...

I'd be all for hearing out Argentina, and saying that their desire to have the Malvinas might be legit but...
1) they no longer allow ships flying the Falklands flag to dock in their ports,
2) there's oil off the coast, clearly this isn't about whatever else they claim.

Seriously, if I was a Falklander, I'd be pissed about #1 and concerned over what would happen when development starts on #2 (although that one is a concern no matter to which country one belongs).

What is #1 supposed to achieve other than strongarming?

Now, I did think it was hilarious when the UK prime minister called Argentina's efforts 'colonization'. Seriously, that was funny, but let's call a spade a spade. It's not theirs and they want to have it.

I know it sounds horrible but I just can't bring my self to give a sh*t about what's going on in other parts of the world.

Maybe we'd be better if it were the 1700's again, then we wouldn't know about every single hotspot on the planet or feel compelled to get involved.

Holy crap, I'm turning into a Libertarian.

Bear wrote:

I know it sounds horrible but I just can't bring my self to give a sh*t about what's going on in other parts of the world.

Maybe we'd be better if it were the 1700's again, then we wouldn't know about every single hotspot on the planet or feel compelled to get involved.

Holy crap, I'm turning into a Libertarian.

I don't think you need to be Libertarian to not want to have anything to do with this situation. I'm an Aggressive Realist and I determine that America has no compelling interest there.

RolandofGilead wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-16939043

I'd be all for hearing out Argentina, and saying that their desire to have the Malvinas might be legit but...
1) they no longer allow ships flying the Falklands flag to dock in their ports,
2) there's oil off the coast, clearly this isn't about whatever else they claim.

Seriously, if I was a Falklander, I'd be pissed about #1 and concerned over what would happen when development starts on #2 (although that one is a concern no matter to which country one belongs).

What is #1 supposed to achieve other than strongarming?

Now, I did think it was hilarious when the UK prime minister called Argentina's efforts 'colonization'. Seriously, that was funny, but let's call a spade a spade. It's not theirs and they want to have it.

Not to mention that Argentina have also gotten Brazil and other South American countries to not allow ships flying the Falklands flag to dock as well.

Honestly, (as a British citizen) i feel the same way i do about Hong Kong, Taiwan and Tibet as i do about Falklands. If they want to be part of something then let them. However, i've never heard of a large contingent of the Falklands populace wanting to be part of Argentina... especially since the invasion.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-1...

Was wondering how the flag-blocking thing was affecting things.

The residents of the Falklands strongly consider themselves British. Ergo, that's the side I'm on ... that of the people living there. Argentina grabbing those islands because they have oil under them wouldn't be any different than Israel grabbing all the good land out of Palestine.

The British, even with their reduced budgets for military hardware, can kick the sh*t out of Argentina, so I'm not terribly worried.