Its not probable that countries would team up against the UK for the Falklands, because we dont have great bonds in the region to the point we would fight a first world country, even if there are agreements to protect each other they would not apply if Argentina attacked(which wont happen), only if the UK decided to attack Argentina and not only protect its territory.

If the UK tried to go against Argentina mainland that would seem like a stupid move as some countries would have to back up argentina.(and probably others that like to appear where they arent called like Venezuela)

I also doubt any countries that could get involved would think first about economy and such, since a lot of countries from the region have good relations with USA and Uk.

I wonder if that's really true, or it's just a matter of the UK exploiting it's favored status to bend the law it's way.

I mean, do you even know the basis of the Argentine claim?

im vaguely familiar with the history of the islands if thats what you mean

according to everything ive read/seen/heard, the law says the water is part of falklands territory.

In general the british claim to the falklands itself is a bit suspect all things considered.

During the first Falkland War there was substantial US assistance for the British as I understand it.

Let's just give the Falklands some nukes and leave matters to their own judgement.

South America should be careful what it says. 60 bln barrels of oil @ $80/barrel gives a possible future independent Falklands a $4.8 TRILLION defence budget. In 20 years it might be FI claiming land that doesn't belong to her.

British people, English speaking who want to remain British and want nothing to do with joining Argentina who unlawfully invaded nearly 30 years ago.
How can that claim possibly be suspect.

Its almost insulting what some people will say...

Argentina are making fuss over something thet have no claim over, it's part of the UK and so in UK waters.