Kirchner's kicking off over the Falkland Islands again....

That isn't hypocritical at all. As I keep trying to say, they (rightly or wrongly) view the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands as invaders on their land - not as the "legitimate citizens" we view them as. Almost like squatters - if squatters in your house held a referendum that said they want to stay, you wouldn't accept them as the new legitimate owners would you? As I said before, this issue is so old (and blurry) that it should just be left as it is and the Falkland Islanders should decide. But that doesn't make the Argentinians crackpot schemers for not going along with it.

The world would be far better off if people could occasionally see issues like this from the "enemies" point of view instead of blindly believing that your own is 100% right.

Wonder if the US will weigh in again and stab Britain in the back, again

But in nearly all of those cases, that's because that's what the inhabitants wanted. The only exception I can think of is Hong Kong, and that's because we had an agreement with China that British rule was only temporary (at least for certain parts of it).

This case is different because the people that live there are happy with the status quo.

But who would we 'give it back' to? The Dutch were the first to find the Island, the British second. The French were the first to settle on there, the British second (without knowing the French colony existed). The Spanish then acquired the French colony. This all happened between 1600 and 1766. The Argentinians don't even come in to the picture until the 1820's

So, considering the French had first claim, the British second and 'then' the French abandoned theirs to the Spanish (putting them third), surely the Islands belong to the British? Until we abandon our claim at least, then Argentina can squabble with their former colonial masters on who takes ownership.

That's the whole problem. How can you have referendum on independence when only the colonists take part and decide? And how can you claim historical, rightful ownership to Islands thousands of miles away from your shores and only acquired through Colonialism? I just think the way think the way the British have handled this whole thing has been dismissive and condescending and won't settle Argentina's grievances.

Who cares, what matters is that all the people on the island now will get to vote. Argentina can stop whinging about it.

Can you read?

That's the whole problem. How can you have referendum on independence when only the colonists take part and decide? And how can you claim historical, rightful ownership to Islands thousands of miles away from your shores and only acquired through Colonialism? I just think the way think the way the British have handled this whole thing has been dismissive and condescending and won't settle Argentina's grievances.

That's the whole problem. How can you have referendum on independence when only the colonists take part and decide? And how can you claim historical, rightful ownership to Islands thousands of miles away from your shores and only acquired through Colonialism? I just think the way think the way the British have handled this whole thing has been dismissive and condescending and won't settle Argentina's grievances.

The Falkland Islands had no indigenous population prior to their settlement by our ancestors – the Islands were unoccupied. Argentina claims the Falkland Islands form part of the province of Tierra del Fuego – an area that was not claimed as a part of the Republic of Argentina until after two generations of Falkland Islanders had been born and raised in our Islands.

There is no truth to Argentine claims that a civilian population was expelled by Britain in 1833. The people who were returned to Argentina were an illegal Argentine military garrison, who had arrived three months earlier. The civilian population in the Islands, who had sought permission from Britain to live there, were invited to stay. All but two of them, with their partners, did so.

We are not an implanted population. Our community has been formed through voluntary immigration and settlement over the course of nearly two hundred years. We are a diverse society, with people from around the world having made the Islands their home.

The UN Charter enshrines the right of all people to determine their own future, a principle known as self-determination. It is in exercising this right that we have chosen to retain our links with the UK. It is this fundamental right that is being ignored by the Argentine Government, who are denying our right to exist as a people, and denying our right to live in our home.

Wonder if the US will weigh in again and stab Britain in the back, again

I can see where people are getting at about the economic situation, and if it does have oil like one of you said, it makes perfect sense as to why they want it back. However, the referendum should be handed to the people. It would be like Norway or Iceland claiming the Shetland islands, which, in the case of Iceland, has not happened since the last Cod War in the late 70s/early 80s. Is there an option for the Falklands to self-rule and not be under the rule of either Argentina or the UK?

Like I said, NEVER. If the Falkland Islanders changed their mind and wanted to drop their British status, would you then argue that they have no right to do so and should remain British by force? If not, then there clearly is never a specific time when our rule of the Falkland Islands would become some kind of "divine right".

And that isn't some crazy hypothesis. Britain exiled the native inhabitants of the Chagos Islands and then turned it into a marine reserve. And, purely coincidently of course, "the BIOT’s former inhabitants would find it difficult, if not impossible, to pursue their claim for resettlement on the islands if the entire Chagos Archipelago were a marine reserve". Our claim that the Falkland Islanders have the right to self-determination is only being used because they are choosing to remain British.

No. Argentina (newly formed) and Chile invaded Patagonia in 1843 and massacred most of the population there against the treaty signed upon independence from Spain. My point being that Argentina has no right to be talking about colonialism when they are still, in effect, colonisers.

That's the whole problem. How can you have referendum on independence when only the colonists take part and decide? And how can you claim historical, rightful ownership to Islands thousands of miles away from your shores and only acquired through Colonialism? I just think the way think the way the British have handled this whole thing has been dismissive and condescending and won't settle Argentina's grievances.

Because self determination is the deciding factor. Colonialism is irrelevant when it happened 200 years ago and Argentinians have not bothered to move to islands since that point.