How should the UK government respond to Argentinia?

Bomb the hell out of them, don't worry we have plenty of ranches in texas where we can get beef. Trust me we couldn't care less about argentina, anything south of our border we could care less about unless it's mexicans coming over it. If a new president is elected in november you might have an ally as well Most informed Americans disdain argentina as much as you brits do.

If any significant proportion of Americans agreed with me I would very carefully consider my views. Remember, yours is a nation that takes Sarah Palin seriously.

I completely respect other peoples views on Britain's claim to the Falkland Islands, but for the sake of a debate, the point of this trend, let me put forward my view without been bombarded with negatives. Alot of people are saying on this trend, Argentina never owned the islands, we made our claim before Argentina existed etc. Let's turn this round imagine if the Vikings had not been driven out of the north of England in the early medieval period by Alfred, and acted as a barrier to Britain becoming a strong and stable nation, with the ability to claim lands by the late seventeen hundred's. If Britain then became a strong and stable nation, what would be your reaction if a nation some 8,000 miles away had claimed a piece of land, say the Outer Hebrides, which it could be legitimately claimed should be part of Britain. It could then be argued that they should remain part of the other nation, as the islanders share their culture. However, Argentina is a relatively liberal democratic nation, and as I heard someone say 'no one in Argentina would go and live their anyway'. Consequently, I'm sure that the Argentina would freely let the Islanders keep their culture and connections with Britain, if they choose to say there (as they share a common culture with Britain. Secondly, simply because a majority of two thousand people want to say part of Britain, this does not mean they should remain so, I am sure plenty of people living in Hong Kong wanted to remain part of Britain too. What this dispute comes down to is oil, which I see as a non-issue, Britain also claims the South Sandwich Islands which are not disputed anyway in order to make a claim to oil in this region. Finally, as Britain makes it's self out to be a world leader when it comes to combating climate change, should the UK's main proprietary,be oil?

So you would force Argentinian civilians who bear no ill will toward the United Kingdom to pay for the actions of the Argentinian government?

'Argentina has no claim to the islands.... Their colonialist tactics should not be tolerated' and Britain does?

Send in Captain Price, cos you don't **** with a mad **** with a moustache and boonie hat....

So you would force Argentinian civilians who bear no ill will toward the United Kingdom to pay for the actions of the Argentinian government?

It shouldnt even be up for discussion until the Islanders themselves say they want to.

Hate the argies anyway magie should have nuked them in 82, if the rest of South America wants to start something now we should be looking to act pre-emptively and seriously consider the use of our nuclear deterrent. Possibly a one off against somewhere with a low population like Patagonia to show we mean business.

Well the Argentine government is more than willing to do the same to the citizens of the Falklands isn't it? If it wants to play this game this is the kind of retribution that should be expected. And why the UK is still giving aid to a nation that seems to despise our existence I'm not quite sure.

Your example of the Faroe Island example is wrong on three levels:

1. The Falkland Islands are 820 miles away from the Danish capital Copenhagen as opposed to 769 miles from London. Although they are closer to the British capital, the distance is comparable; as opposed to the Falkland Islands which are 200 miles off Argentina and 7913 miles from London.

2. Secondly, if you study the history of the Faroe Islands they share a similar culture to Denmark and the rest of Scandinavia, due to the fact that they were inhabited by Vikings in earlier centuries. Consequently, their connection is deep routed as opposed to the 2,000 islanders that share the same culture due to relatively recent imperialism by Britain. I see your point that human beings have always been colonises but it is not natural to colonise a piece of land that is 8,000 miles away.

3. Britain has never made a claim to the islands, at least in modern times, consequently I do not see how you have come to the conclusion that using my logic, a country should be forced to make a sovereignty claim over a piece of land it doesn't want. If Britain does not want to make a more legitimate claim over a piece of land, than the country who currently owns it then that is perfectly fine; however, this does not mean that when another country makes a more legitimate claim to a piece of land, Britain should then keep it.

No, we respect Danish sovereignty because we recognise they have a legitimate claim, the inhabitants of the Faroe Islands are Scandinavian and have inhabited the island since the 1st century and therefore rightly want to remain part of Denmark, in other words they are not Danes who are there because the Islands are owned by Denmark. However, the Falkland Islanders are simply there because the islands are owned by Britain.

I'm not necessarily arguing that Argentina should have sovereignty over the island's either, simply that they have a more legitimate claim, in order to challenge the view that Argentina are the 'baddies' in all of this and Britain can do no wrong. In an ideal world the Falklands would become independent, however, this may be economically non-viable unless alot of oil is found, or the islands should become an uninhabited nature reserve, as they were before the 16th century.