In 1833 (if my memory serves) the UK established control of the Falkland Islands, a claim which was never accepted by Argentina (as the Falklands are located 400 miles off of the Argentinian coast). On April 2nd 1982, Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands and other British territories in the South Atlantic ocean. On 21st May 1982 the UK launched its operation to retake the Falklands by sending the RAF, Royal Navy and several hundred ground troops to the Falkland Islands. The Argentinian forces surrendered on 14th June 1982, and the final death toll was 255 British troops and 649 Argentinian troops, aswell as 3 Falkland Islanders. Recently, ever since the discovery of a potential 60 billion barrels of oil in the seabeds surounding the Falkland Islands, Argentina has been putting increased international pressure on the UK to relinguish control of the Islands and return them to Argentinian control, and have recently been hinting to a boycott of UK imports by South American countries (who also support Argentina's claim to the Falklands). In January 2012, the UK sent the most advanced, deadliest destroyer in human existance, HMS Dauntless, to patrol the South Atlantic, a move which is claimed by Argentina as a move to militarise the South Atlantic. Oh, and HMS Dauntless is also rumoured to be carrying nuclear weapons, a claim which is denied by the UK government. At the moment Argentina is trying to convince Chile to close off its airports to the Falkland Islands, effectively cutting off the Falklands Islands from the rest of the world, bar long-haul chartered flights from Europe, Asia, N. America and Australia. The thing is, is that the vast majority of the occupants of the Falklands (~3000 people) would rather remain under British control, with only 1 person in the entire island choosing to be ruled by Argentina in a poll in 2011. Also, at a global summit in South Korea a few weeks ago, the Argentinian representatives attacked Nick Clegg (verbally) about the Falklands issue. So... what does vgchartz think about all of this? Is the UK still powerful enough to defend the Falklands? Is a new Falklands war imminent? Will the US back the UK if it comes to war, or will they side with Argentina due to huge import dependencies? Does Argentina have any right to the Falklands, given that they lie 400 miles from its shores?

Discuss!

I will not be drawn into another financial debate with you Dennis, I really will not.

Wait,... What?

I mean, IMO Argentina has a more legitimate claim to the Islands...

*runs away*

Argentina have enough natural resources as it is, they should leave the Falklands alone - they accuse the UK of being militant, yet they're the ones trying to rule a region that doesn't want to be ruled by them.

Neither countries will go to war. Argentina has a significantly smaller military than it did during the war and spends only 0.9% of it's gdp on it. The UK also isn't as powerful as it was back in 1982 and it would be economically retarded. The UK will argue that the islanders should choose, Argentina will argue that the original population were kicked out and the islands shouldn't belong to a country thousands of miles away. It's a tricky situation only made trickier by the oil. In my opinion it's up to the current population to choose despite whatever happened in the past.

It's felt Argentina only kicks up a storm about the issue when they want to distract their population from economic issues. Thats why they invaded in 1982 and its part of the reason they are doing it now. I read how according to the Argentine President, the Uk's position 'looks more absurd every day'. Personally, considering how the Falkland's population would rather be ruled by Britain, I think the reality is the opposite and that Cameron's comments about Argentina being colonial about the issue were actually on the mark. From what I've read about the topic, I don't think most of the Argentine population actually realise that the Falkland Islanders want to remain British, they believe they're Argentines under a foreign occupation, which is also what the Argentine government believed in 1982. However, on the British government's e-petitions website, there are several petitions demanding the Falklands be 'returned' to Argentina; none of which have gathered any considerable backing.

I can't see there being another war over the islands, as neither government wants one. That Argentina are more content to kick up a diplomatic storm over issue implies they know another invasion would end in failure due to the position of islanders and Britain's military strength relative to their own.

Actually the islands were discovered by the British, but first settlers were French. Since there were no frogs to eat, they turned the islands over to the Spanish. Then the Spanish gave up and some Bitish/Scottish troops moved in. Argentinians never settled on the islands. They have just been complaining endlessly because the islands are close to their coast. And no, the islands are not a tourist attraction, it basically is cold and it rains. A lot.

Of course the british are strong enough to defend against the Argentines. If the Falkland Islanders want to be part of the UK, leave them be.

Argentina doesn't have a leg to stand on IMO. The Islands are 400 miles off of the Argentine coast, which is kinda like the UK claiming they own Iceland... Kinda. Also, the people of the country would prefer UK rule, so I don't see how any Global body could support the Argentine claim. However, if there is 60 billion barrels of oil found beneath the seabeds surrounding the Falklands ($7.2 trillion dollars worth using current oil prices or 15x Argentinas annual GDP) then, unless both governments can come to an agreement of sharing the money generated from it, then god knows what will happen... War perhaps? S. American bloc vs European (/US potentially) bloc. Very unlikely, but possible, especially considering nut-jobs like Hugo Chavez have a lot of political sway in South America.

I'm from the UK, and I think it should be for the islanders to decide. If we start bringing up hundreds of years old claims to land, almost everything is up for debate in the world (how about Native Americans and the US, or Israel).

Argentina are just posturing to get regional support and deflect attention from their country's problems, I doubt they will re-invade. But without America's help we cannot defend the islands against an invasion unlike the 80s (we don't have the navy or air force to do it).

I never said the argument was legitimate, that's just what I heard an argentinian ambassador say on CNN or something :P Also never said anything about tourism, I know what the islands are like.